Hui v. Social Security Administration
ORDER Granting 2 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 6/12/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jjg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 17cv776-CAB-RBB
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS [Doc. No. 2]
On April 25, 2017, defendant Social Security Administration/United States of
America filed a motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 2.] More than six weeks have passed, and
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). Before dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, the district
court “weigh[s] several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of
litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the
defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the
availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v.
Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986)). That plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this
action does not excuse her failure to follow the rules of procedure that govern other
litigants. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow
the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”).
Here, defendant attached a proof of service to its motion, signaling that plaintiff
was served at the address provided on the face of her complaint. [Doc. No. 2-2.]
Moreover, plaintiff was provided adequate time to prepare a response. The notice of
motion set a hearing for May 30, 2017, resulting in a response deadline for plaintiff of
May 16, 2017, approximately three weeks after defendant’s motion was filed on April 25,
2107. Almost one month has passed since then and still plaintiff has not filed an
opposition. Thus, the Court finds that “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of
litigation,” “the court’s need to manage its docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to the
defendant” all weigh in favor of granting the motion to dismiss. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at
53. Accordingly, the majority of the Ghazali factors weigh in favor of dismissal.
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant’s motion to
dismiss [Doc. No. 2] is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the case is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 12, 2017
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?