Melody Joy Baker v. Ventura County Human Services Agency

Filing 21

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS 12 . Accordingly, Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed with prejudice by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ). (lc). Modified on 4/28/2014 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MELODY JOY BAKER,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN
SERVICES AGENCY,

15
Defendant.
16
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 14-00860 DDP (SHx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS
[Dkt. No. 12]

17
18

Before the court is Defendant County of Ventura (“the

19

County”)’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint.1 Plaintiff

20

Melody Joy Baker has not opposed the motion. Accordingly, the court

21

GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

22

Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an

23

opposing party to file an opposition to any motion at least twenty-

24

one (21) days prior to the date designated for hearing the motion.

25

C.D. CAL. L.R. 7-9. Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 provides that

26

“[t]he failure to file any required document, or the failure to

27
28
1

The Complaint was errantly filed against Ventura County
Human Services Agency.

1

file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting

2

or denial of the motion.”

C.D. CAL. L.R. 7-12.

3

The hearing on Defendant’s motion was noticed for April 28,

4

2014. Plaintiff’s opposition was therefore due by April 7, 2014.

5

As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition

6

or any other filing that could be construed as a request for a

7

continuance. Accordingly, Plaintiff is deemed to consent to the

8

dismissal of the Complaint.

9

The court will dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff

10

has previously filed suit in this court asserting the same claims

11

asserted here and then failed to oppose the County’s motions to

12

dismiss. In an action Plaintiff filed in 2012 against the County

13

asserting the same Americans with Disability Act claims, Plaintiff

14

failed on two occasions to file oppositions to the County’s motions

15

to dismiss her complaints. (See Declaration of Ronda J. McKaig in

16

Support of Motion to Dismiss Ex. 10, p. 1; Ex. 18, p.1.; Baker v.

17

Ventura County Human Services Agency, Case No. 2:12-CV-09056-PA-

18

FFM.) Following her second failure to file an opposition, the court

19

specifically cautioned Plaintiff that the Local Rules required her

20

to file a response to the County’s motion, and that her failure to

21

do so would be considered consent to granting of the motion. (See

22

McKaid Decl. Ex. 18, p. 1, 2.) The action was ultimately dismissed

23

in December 2013 after Plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient

24

to establish her standing to sue the County, despite being provided

25

specific instructions as to what she was required to plead and

26

being given four opportunities to do so. The present Complaint

27

mirrors the one dismissed in that case. (See McKaig Decl. Exs. 10,

28

21, 24, 25; Dkt. No. 1.) It also bears noting that Plaintiff only
2

1

began to file suit on this matter in federal court after having

2

been declared a vexatious litigant by the courts of the State of

3

California following her filing of a series of lawsuits against the

4

County asserting the same claims as those asserted here. (See

5

McKaig Decl. Ex. 1.) These circumstances warrant dismissal with

6

prejudice.

7
8

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed with
prejudice.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated: April 28, 2014
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3