Wise et al v. Nordell et al
Notice re: Plaintiffs' Failure to File an Opposition to Defendants' 88 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim . Plaintiffs shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition on or before October 6, 2017. In the event Plaintiffs file an opposition, Defendants shall file a reply on or before October 13, 2017. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 9/19/17.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID WISE, an individual;
CHRISTINA WISE, an individual,
DANIEL NORDELL, in his individual
and official capacity; JIM KOERBER,
in his official capacity; BONNIE
DUMANIS, in her official capacity;
THE SAN DIEGO DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; ANGELA
CHANG, in her individual and official
capacity; THE COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO; THE CALIFORNIA BOARD
OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS; DOES
NOTICE RE: PLAINTIFFS’
FAILURE TO FILE AN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
CASE NO. 12cv1209-GPC(BGS)
On July 27, 2017, the Court lifted the stay in this matter and set a briefing
schedule on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 86.) Pursuant to the scheduling
order, on August 9, 2017, Defendants1 County of San Diego, District Attorney Bonnie
Dumanis, Deputy District Attorney Jim Koerber and District Attorney Investigator
Daniel Nordell filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 88.)
Defendant Angela Chang did not file a motion to dismiss.
1 To date, Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition.2
Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2. requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition
3 or statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing.
4 Failure to comply with these rules “may constitute a consent to the granting of a
5 motion.” Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c. District courts have broad discretion to enact and
6 apply local rules, including dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local
7 rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an
8 unopposed motion to dismiss under local rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to
9 oppose as consent to granting the motion); see United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471,
10 474 (9th Cir. 1979). Even though the court has an obligation to liberally construe their
11 pleadings, “pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at
Here, Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition and failure to file an opposition
14 may constitute a consent to the granting of the motion. See Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c.
15 Therefore, because the first amended complaint may be subject to dismissal and
16 Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, the Court grants Plaintiffs another opportunity to file
17 an opposition or statement of non-opposition. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition or
18 statement of non-opposition on or before October 6, 2017. In the event Plaintiffs file
19 an opposition, Defendants shall file a reply on or before October 13, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21 DATED: September 19, 2017
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge
25 Christina Wise
3525 Del Mar Heights Road, Suite 31
26 San Diego, CA 92130-2227
The deadline to file an opposition passed on September 1, 2017. (See Dkt. No.
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?