Rashidi v. GG Homes, Inc
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Defendant GG Homes, Inc. moved to dismiss the pro se plaintiff's amended complaint, and the plaintiff failed to file an opposition by the deadline set by local rules. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, treating the failure to respond as consent to the dismissal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) 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 oppose the motion as consent to its granting. The order recites that the plaintiff was aware of the motion and had ample time to respond but failed to do so. Dismissing without prejudice is a standard and appropriate remedy in this context to preserve the plaintiff's right to refile. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the local rule and binding Ninth Circuit precedent to the facts that the plaintiff failed to respond to a noticed motion. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural dismissal based on consent via failure to respond.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARJI RASHIDI, Case No. 21-cv-00209-BAS-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 10) 14 GG HOMES, INC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On February 3, 2021, Plaintiff Arji Rashidi, proceeding pro se, commenced this 18 action against Defendant GG Homes, Inc. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) After GG Homes filed 19 its first motion to dismiss the Complaint, Rashidi amended the Complaint. (First. Am. 20 Compl., ECF No. 9.) GG Homes renewed its motion to dismiss (“the Motion”), with a 21 noticed hearing date of June 7, 2021. (ECF No. 10.) Under this district’s local rules, 22 Plaintiff’s deadline to oppose the Motion fell on May 24, 2021. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(e)(2). 23 Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion. 24 Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) provides that a failure to oppose a motion “may 25 constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the Court.” 26 The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may properly grant a motion to dismiss for 27 failure to respond pursuant to the court’s local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 28 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for failure to file timely opposition 1 ||papers where plaintiff had notice of the motion and ample to time to respond). 2 Furthermore, even though federal courts will construe pleadings liberally in their favor, 3 || se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54 (citing King 4 ||v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. 5 || Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012)). 6 Here, it has been more than 21 days since Plaintiff's deadline to file an opposition 7 ||expired. Plaintiff was aware of the Motion and “was given ample time to respond to”’ it, 8 || but he failed to do so. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54. The Court therefore deems □□□□□□□□□□ □ 9 || failure to oppose Defendant’s motion as consent to granting it. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(f)(3)(c). 10 || Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) and 11 || DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Complaint. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 / □ 14 || DATED: June 15, 2021 Lin A (Lyohaa 6 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28