Branch v. Lilac Holdings, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Defendant Lilac Holdings, LLC moved to dismiss the complaint in a removed state court action, and Plaintiff Kathy Branch failed to file an opposition by the deadline set by local rules. The court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, deeming the failure to respond as consent to the motion.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Complaint.” | agree with court The court relied on Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Ghazali v. Moran) to treat the plaintiff's failure to respond as consent to the motion. The order recites that the plaintiff was aware of the motion and had ample time to respond but failed to do so. This is a standard procedural mechanism in the Ninth Circuit for handling unopposed motions. |
Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint Without Prejudice“DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Complaint.” | agree with court Dismissing without prejudice is the appropriate remedy when a motion is granted based on procedural default (failure to respond) rather than the merits of the claims. It allows the plaintiff to refile if they wish, provided they comply with procedural requirements in the future. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the local rule and binding Ninth Circuit precedent to the procedural facts presented. It clearly states the deadline, the lack of opposition, and the legal consequence of that failure. The reasoning is concise and directly supports the result.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KATHY BRANCH, Case No. 21-cv-00605-BAS-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 4) 14 LILAC HOLDINGS, LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On December 30, 2020, Plaintiff Kathy Branch commenced this action against 18 Defendant Lilac Holdings, LLC, in the Superior Court of California in the County of San 19 Diego. (ECF No. 1-2.) Lilac Holdings was served with the complaint in the state action 20 on March 8, 2021. (Id.) Lilac Holdings timely removed the action to federal court on April 21 7, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) On April 14, 2021, Lilac Holdings filed a motion to dismiss (“the 22 Motion”), with a noticed hearing date of May 24, 2021. (ECF No. 4.) Under this district’s 23 local rules, Plaintiff’s deadline to oppose the Motion fell on May 10, 2021. See Civ. L.R. 24 7.1(e)(2). Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion. 25 Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) provides that a failure to oppose a motion “may 26 constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the Court.” 27 The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may properly grant a motion to dismiss for 28 failure to respond pursuant to the court’s local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 1 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for failure to file timely opposition 2 ||papers where plaintiff had notice of the motion and ample to time to respond). 3 Furthermore, even though federal courts will construe pleadings liberally in their favor, 4 ||“pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54 (citing King 5 Ativeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. 6 || Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012)). 7 Here, more than a month has passed since Plaintiff's deadline to file an opposition 8 ||expired. Plaintiff was aware of the Motion and “was given ample time to respond □□□ it, 9 || but he failed to do so. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54. The Court therefore deems □□□□□□□□□□□ 10 || failure to oppose Defendant’s motion as consent to granting it. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(f)(3)(c). 11 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) and 12 || DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Complaint. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 /) 15 || DATED: June 16, 2021 (Yin A (Lyphan 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28