Michele A. Dobson et al v. State of California et al

Filing 94

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE 81 , 83 , 85 , 88 . Court directs the Clerk of Court to close this case by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) (lc) Modified on 5/25/2016 (lc).

JS-6
O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

MICHELE DOBSON, individually, and

12

ANNE MARY FLYNN, as Guardian Ad

13

Litem of M.W.D. and D.T.W.,

Case No. 2:15-cv-9648-ODW(JPR)

Plaintiffs,

14
15

v.

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE [81, 83,

16

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; COUNTY OF 85, 88]

17

LOS ANGELES; LONG BEACH

18

POLICE DEPARTMENT;

19

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND

20

FAMILY SERVICES OF THE COUNTY

21

OF LOS ANGELES; DEPARTMENT OF

22

HUMAN SERVICES SYSTEMS OF THE

23

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES;

24

SHANNON STEVENSON; KELLY

25

CALLAHAN; BILLY FOSTER; SARAI

26

GARCIA; HELENE HANDLER;

27

ROBERT MUNOZ; JAMIE ESTRADA;

28

DI LINDA BOSSENMEYER; BRITTANI

1

JOHNSON; KAIRON WILLIAMS;

2

SUSAN JEOUNG; LONG BEACH

3

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; LAURA

4

WHEELS; IDA MOSCOSCO; LAW

5

OFFICES OF MARLENE FURTH;

6

CHILDRENS LAW CENTER OF

7

CALIFORNIA; CAMP FIRE WRAP

8

USA; and JENNIFER CANTALAN,
Defendants.

9
10

I.

11

INTRODUCTION

12

Before the Court are four Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff Michele Dobson’s

13

Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). For the reasons discussed below, the Court

14

GRANTS each Motion as unopposed and DENIES leave to amend.

15

II.

16

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

17

Plaintiff Dobson’s allegations are well-known to this Court. On December 16,

18

2016, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed her original Complaint in this matter, bringing

19

at least sixteen claims for relief, including: Fourth Amendment unlawful entry,

20

seizure, search and “removal” violations; First Amendment violations; Fourteenth

21

Amendment

22

“presentation of false evidence” violations; as well as state law claims for intentional

23

infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, “failure to protect,” legal

24

malpractice, medical malpractice, interference with economic relations, and negligent

25

hiring and supervision. (Compl. ¶¶ 213–371, ECF No. 4.)

interference

with

familial

relations,

continued

detention,

and

26

On February 18, 2016, the Court granted then-Defendant Daniel Kramon’s

27

Motion to Dismiss the entire Complaint after Plaintiff failed to file a timely opposition

28

or non-opposition. (First MTD Order 4, ECF No. 51.) The Court gave Plaintiff until

2

1

March 14, 2016 to amend her pleadings. (Id. 5.)

2

Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on March 11, 2016. (ECF

3

No. 58.) Reiterating the same nonsensical claims, this pleading managed to build on

4

the original Complaint’s 300 pages and clocked in at a staggering 324 pages. The

5

Court sua sponte dismissed the FAC for failing to comply with the minimal pleading

6

requirements of Rule 8 and instructed Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies by April 15,

7

2016. (Second MTD Order 5–7, ECF No. 70.)

8

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s third bite at the apple: her SAC. (ECF No.

9

73.) This operative Complaint is slightly abbreviated, in that it only measures 93

10

pages. Again, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages against 22 Defendants,

11

including the City of Long Beach, the County of Los Angeles, and myriad individual

12

officers and private citizens (collectively “Defendants”). (Id.) From what the Court

13

can ascertain, Plaintiff claims that the County of Los Angeles, the City of Long

14

Beach, and various local government agencies and individuals violated her rights and

15

those of her two minor children when her daughter was removed from her home due

16

to concerns of child abuse.1

17

Defendants Law Offices of Marlene Furth, County of Los Angeles, Camp Fire

18

USA, Long Beach Unified School District, Ida Moscosco, and Laura Wheels filed

19

four separate Motions to Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 81, 83, 85, 88.)2 Each argue that the

20

entire SAC should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

21

(Id.) In addition, the County of Los Angeles and the Law Offices of Marlene Furth

22

argue for dismissal under Rule 8. (ECF Nos. 81, 83.) Camp Fire USA and the Law

23

Offices of Marlene Furth also move for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). (ECF Nos. 81,

24

1

25
26
27
28

After multiple attempts to file nonconforming, longwinded, and untimely Applications for
Guardian Ad Litem Status, the Court struck her representative capacities from the SAC. (ECF No.
76.) On April 21, 2016, Anne Mary Flynn, the minors’ godmother, applied for Guardian Ad Litem
Status. (ECF No. 77.) The Court granted the application and reinstated the causes of action asserted
on behalf of the minors. (ECF No. 79.)
2
Defendant Daniel Kramon also filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 80.) The Court granted his
motion separately, finding that Plaintiff abandoned her claims against Kramon by failing to mention
Kramon in the SAC. (ECF No. 84.) Daniel Kramon is no longer a party to this action.

3

1

85.)

2

Plaintiff failed to timely oppose any of these Motions. Any opposition to the

3

Motions filed by the Law Offices of Marlene Furth, Camp Fire USA, the Long Beach

4

Unified School District, Ida Moscosco, and Laura Wheels was due on May 23, 2016.

5

Opposition to the County’s Motion was due May 16, 2016, and while Plaintiff did

6

manage to file an opposition, it was untimely—and filed three times. (ECF Nos. 90–

7

92.)

8

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

9

Local Civil Rule 7-9 requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or

10

statement of non-opposition at least twenty-one days before the noticed hearing date.

11

District courts have broad discretion to enact and apply local rules, including

12

dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46

13

F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an unopposed motion to dismiss under

14

local rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to oppose as consent to granting the

15

motion); United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). Even though the

16

court has an obligation to liberally construe their pleadings, “pro se litigants are bound

17

by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54. Before dismissing an action for

18

failure to comply with local rules, the district court “weigh[s] several factors: ‘(1) the

19

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage

20

its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring

21

disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’”

22

Id. at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

23
24

IV.

DISCUSSION

25

The Court finds that Plaintiff clearly violated Local Rule 7-9 by failing to file

26

timely oppositions or non-oppositions to any of the Motions pending before the Court.

27

The Motions filed by the Law Offices of Marlene Furth, Camp Fire USA, the Long

28

Beach Unified School District, Isa Moscosco, and Laura Wheels had a noticed hearing

4

1

date of June 13, 2016, and any opposition was due on May 23, 2016. (ECF Nos. 81,

2

85, 88.) No such oppositions were filed. The County’s Motion to Dismiss had a

3

noticed hearing date of June 6, 2016, with an opposition deadline of May 16, 2016.

4

(ECF No. 83.) However, Plaintiff did not oppose this Motion until May 19, 2016.

5

(ECF Nos. 90–92.)

6

The Court concludes that “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

7

litigation,” “the court’s need to manage its docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to the

8

defendants” weigh in favor of granting the Motions to Dismiss in their entirety. See

9

Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. While public policy and the availability of less drastic

10

sanctions would usually counsel in favor of denial of the motion, Plaintiff’s consistent

11

disregard for the Court’s time and resources outweighs this inclination.

12

Moreover, coupled with Plaintiff’s current disregard for court deadlines is the

13

fact that this Court previously granted a Motion to Dismiss for similar reasons. When

14

the Court entered its first dismissal order, it clearly laid out a litigant’s obligation to

15

follow court rules and deadlines and explained that the failure to file a timely

16

opposition will signal to the court that the litigant does not oppose the motion—

17

regardless of the litigant’s pro se status. (First MTD Order 3–4 (citing Ghazali, 46

18

F.3d at 53).) Plaintiff’s consistent disregard of deadlines throughout this litigation

19

shows that the Court’s offers of second, third, and sometimes fourth chances were for

20

naught and its benefit of the doubt misplaced. The Court will not make that mistake

21

again. Plaintiff’s unfailing inability to follow court rules not only caused significant

22

delay and wasted precious judicial resources; it also forced Defendants to file up to

23

three Motions to Dismiss each within the last five months. See Sun World, Inc. v.

24

Lizarazu Olivarria, 144 F.R.D. 384, 390 (E.D. Cal. 1992). Accordingly, the Court

25

will not continue to entertain Plaintiff’s nonsensical ramblings if she cannot even

26

adhere to basic court deadlines.

27

//

28

5

V.

1

CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions to

3

Dismiss as unopposed, and does so with prejudice. Due to Plaintiff’s utter lack of

4

respect for this Court’s time and resources and her refusal to follow court orders, the

5

Court directs the Clerk of Court to close this case.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

May 25, 2016

10
11
12

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

6