Wise et al v. Nordell et al

Filing 92

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID WISE, an individual; CHRISTINA WISE, an individual, 12 vs. Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 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 1-50, 22 23 24 25 NOTICE RE: PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO FILE AN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Defendants. 20 21 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.) 26 27 28 1 Defendant Angela Chang did not file a motion to dismiss. -1- [12cv1209-GPC(BGS)] 1 To date, Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition.2 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 12 54. 13 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. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED: September 19, 2017 22 HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL United States District Judge 23 24 cc: 25 Christina Wise 3525 Del Mar Heights Road, Suite 31 26 San Diego, CA 92130-2227 27 28 2 86.) The deadline to file an opposition passed on September 1, 2017. (See Dkt. No. -2- [12cv1209-GPC(BGS)]

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?