Attallah v. United States of America et al

Filing 10

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JEMY ATTALLAH, Case No.: 17CV554-MMA (AGS) ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, v. [Doc. No. 7] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; and CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC., 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 Plaintiff Jemy Attallah filed this action against Defendants the United States of 18 America, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and 19 Corrections Corporation of America, Inc.1 See Doc. No. 1. On June 29, 2017, Defendant 20 Corrections Corporation of America, Inc. (“Defendant Corrections Corporation”) filed a 21 motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 22 See Doc. No. 7. The Court set the motion for hearing on August 7, 2017, meaning that 23 Plaintiff was required to file a response in opposition on or before July 24, 2017. See 24 Civ. LR 7.1(e)(2) (stating that “each party opposing a motion . . . must file that 25 opposition or statement of non-opposition . . . not later than fourteen (14) calendar days 26                                                                   27 1 28 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. -1- 17CV554-MMA (AGS) 1 prior to the noticed hearing”). Plaintiff has not yet filed an opposition brief or a 2 statement of non-opposition in response to Defendant Corrections Corporation’s motion 3 to dismiss. As a result, Defendant requests the Court grant its unopposed motion to 4 dismiss. See Doc. No. 9. 5 The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may grant an unopposed motion to 6 dismiss where a local rule permits, but does not require, it to do so. See generally, 7 Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, Civil Local Rule 8 7.1.f.3.c provides, “[i]f an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required 9 by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a 10 motion or other request for ruling by the court.” As such, the Court has the option of 11 granting Defendant’s motion on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to oppose.2 Generally, 12 public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits. See Hernandez v. City of El 13 Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). However, a case cannot move forward toward 14 resolution on the merits when the plaintiff fails to defend his or her complaint against a 15 Rule 12 motion. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s unopposed motion to 16 dismiss, and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims as to Defendant Corrections Corporation 17 without prejudice. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: July 31, 2017 21 _____________________________ Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26                                                                   27 2 28 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. -2- 17CV554-MMA (AGS)

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?