Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club v. United States of America et al

Filing 10

ORDER Granting 6 Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's Complaint is Dismissed Without Prejudice, and the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, currently set for March 14, 2014, is Vacated. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 3/10/2014. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE
OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB, an
INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE

12
13
14

vs.

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv2733-GPC(BGS)
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO DISMISS
[Dkt. No. 6.]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

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

On December 6, 2013, Defendant United States of America filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint. (Dkt. No. 6.) The Court set a briefing schedule requiring
Plaintiff to file a response by January 17, 2014. (Dkt. No. 7.) To date, Plaintiff has
not filed an opposition.
Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2. requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition
or statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing.
Failure to comply with these rules “may constitute a consent to the granting of a
motion.” Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c. District courts have broad discretion to enact and
apply local rules, including dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local
rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an
unopposed motion to dismiss under local rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to
oppose as consent to granting the motion); United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474

-1-

[13cv2733-GPC(BGS)]

1 (9th Cir. 1979). Before dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, the
2 district court “weigh[s] several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious
3 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
4 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their
5 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53
6 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986)).
7

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

8 litigation,” “the court’s need to manage its docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to the
9 defendants” weigh in favor of granting the Motion to Dismiss based on Plaintiff’s
10 failure to file an opposition. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. The majority of these factors
11 weigh in favor of dismissal.
12

Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c, the Court

13 finds good cause to grant Defendant’s unopposed motions to dismiss. The Court’s
14 docket reflects that Plaintiff was served with a copy of the motion and the Court’s
15 briefing schedule. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss
16 as unopposed. See Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c; see also Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED

18 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss,
19 currently set for March 14, 2014, is VACATED.
20

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED.

21
22 DATED: March 10, 2014
23
24

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
-2-

[13cv2733-GPC(BGS)]