Venice Baking Company v. Sophast Sales and Marketing LLC et al

Filing 11


Download PDF
JS-6 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court Central District of California 8 9 10 11 VENICE BAKING COMPANY, Plaintiff, 12 13 Case No. 2:16-cv-6136-ODW(KS) v. ORDER GRANTING 14 SOPHAST SALES AND MARKETING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 15 LLC; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE [9] Defendants. 16 17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 Before the Court is Sophast Sales and Marketing LLC’s Motion to Dismiss 20 Plaintiff Venice Baking Company’s Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. (ECF 21 No. 9.) 22 unopposed. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Motion as 23 24 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 25 On May 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed this action in the Superior Court of Los Angeles, 26 seeking declaratory relief. (Compl., Not. of Removal, Ex. A, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s 27 claims arise out of a contract dispute between the two parties. (Id.) 28 Defendant removed the action to this Court on August 16, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) 1 Now before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Mot., ECF No. 9.) 2 Defendant seeks to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety, contending that this Court 3 lacks both specific and general personal jurisdiction over Defendant. (Id. 7–13.) 4 The Court set a hearing date of October 3, 2016 for the Motion. (ECF No. 9.) 5 Plaintiff’s opposition to the Motion was due on September 12, 2016, though no 6 opposition was filed. Defendants’ Motion is now before the Court for decision.1 7 III. 8 DISCUSSION 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, even “pro se litigants are 17 bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54. Before dismissing an 18 action for failure to comply with local rules, the district court “weigh[s] several 19 factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 20 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 21 policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less 22 drastic sanctions.’” Id. at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 23 (9th Cir. 1986)). 24 Plaintiff clearly violated Local Rule 7-9 by failing to file a timely opposition or 25 non-opposition to the instant Motion. With a noticed hearing date of October 3, 2016, 26 Plaintiff’s response was due September 12, 2016. (ECF No. 9.) No opposition was 27 1 28 After carefully considering the papers (or lack thereof) filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. 2 1 filed. The Court concludes that “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 2 litigation,” “the court’s need to manage its docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to the 3 defendants” weigh in favor of granting the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. See 4 Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. While public policy and the availability of less drastic 5 sanctions would usually counsel in favor of denial of the motion, the Court accepts 6 Plaintiff’s lack of response as acquiescence. Where the Plaintiff does not oppose 7 dismissal, it is unnecessary for the Court to consider less drastic alternatives. 8 Moreover, Plaintiff is represented by counsel in this matter, and thus cannot claim 9 ignorance of the filing deadlines. 10 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss as unopposed. 11 See L.R. 7-9; see also Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Holt v. I.R.S., 231 Fed. Appx. 557, 558 12 (9th Cir. 2007) (court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing action for failure to 13 file an opposition and rejecting pro se plaintiff’s contention that the district court 14 should have warned her of the consequences of failing to file an opposition). The 15 Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 September 19, 2016 20 21 22 ____________________________________ OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?