Miriam P. Aulmann v. Eagle Iron Works et al

Filing 20

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS 11 , 12 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated). (lc) Modified on 4/20/2015 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MIRIAM P. AULMANN,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
EAGLE IRON WORKS; ESTATE OF
RALPH L. AULMANN,

15
Defendants.
16
___________________________

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

Case No. ED CV 14-02529 DDP (SPx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO DISMISS

[Dkt. Nos. 11, 12]

17
18

Presently before the court are Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.

19

Plaintiff has not opposed either motion.

20

GRANTS Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and adopts the following

21

order.

Accordingly, the court

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.

26

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

27

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

28

or denial of the motion.”

Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 provides that

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

1

On December 16, 2014, Defendants noticed their motions for a

2

hearing on March 23, 2015.

The hearing was later continued to

3

April 27, 2015.

Plaintiff’s oppositions were therefore due by

4

April 6, 2015.

As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not

5

filed an opposition or any other filing that could be construed as

6

a request for a continuance.1

7

Plaintiff’s failure to oppose as consent to granting the motions to

8

dismiss, and GRANTS the motions.

Accordingly, the court deems

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated: April 20, 2015
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

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

1

The court notes that, prior to the transfer of this case to
the undersigned, Plaintiff did file a document titled “Objections
to Improper Removal.” (Dkt. No. 14.) Plaintiff did not file or
notice a motion to remand. Even had she done so, however, such
filing would not excuse Plaintiff from the requirements of Local
Rule 7-9. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s objections regarding the amount
in controversy do not address the Complaint’s allegations that
Plaintiff has been deprived of “one third of a multi-million dollar
corporation.”
2