Attallah v. United States of America et al
ORDER Granting 7 Unopposed Motion to Dismiss. The Court grants Defendant's unopposed motion to dismiss, and dismisses Plaintiff's claims as to Defendant Corrections Corporation without prejudice. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 7/31/2017. (ag)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 17CV554-MMA (AGS)
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO DISMISS
[Doc. No. 7]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
CUSTOMS AND BORDER
PROTECTION; IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; and
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
Plaintiff Jemy Attallah filed this action against Defendants the United States of
America, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and
Corrections Corporation of America, Inc.1 See Doc. No. 1. On June 29, 2017, Defendant
Corrections Corporation of America, Inc. (“Defendant Corrections Corporation”) filed a
motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
See Doc. No. 7. The Court set the motion for hearing on August 7, 2017, meaning that
Plaintiff was required to file a response in opposition on or before July 24, 2017. See
Civ. LR 7.1(e)(2) (stating that “each party opposing a motion . . . must file that
opposition or statement of non-opposition . . . not later than fourteen (14) calendar days
Counsel contends that Defendant Corrections Corporation of America, Inc. is now “CoreCivic.” See
Doc. Nos. 7, 9. For consistency, and the purposes of this Order, the Court refers to this entity as
Corrections Corporation of America, Inc. as the entity is currently reflected on the docket as such.
prior to the noticed hearing”). Plaintiff has not yet filed an opposition brief or a
statement of non-opposition in response to Defendant Corrections Corporation’s motion
to dismiss. As a result, Defendant requests the Court grant its unopposed motion to
dismiss. See Doc. No. 9.
The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may grant an unopposed motion to
dismiss where a local rule permits, but does not require, it to do so. See generally,
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, Civil Local Rule
7.1.f.3.c provides, “[i]f an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required
by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a
motion or other request for ruling by the court.” As such, the Court has the option of
granting Defendant’s motion on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to oppose.2 Generally,
public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits. See Hernandez v. City of El
Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). However, a case cannot move forward toward
resolution on the merits when the plaintiff fails to defend his or her complaint against a
Rule 12 motion. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s unopposed motion to
dismiss, and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims as to Defendant Corrections Corporation
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 31, 2017
Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge
Also, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the provisions of Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2 constitutes a failure
to comply with the provisions of this Court’s Local Rules, which serves as an additional basis for
dismissal under Civil Local Rule 41.1.b.
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?