Groover et al v. Caldera et al
ORDER Granting 3 , 4 Unopposed Motions to Dismiss. The Court grants Defendants' unopposed motions to dismiss, and dismisses Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 11/28/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rmc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EDWIN ALLEN GROOVER and
CHERYL ANN WOOMER,
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Case No.: 17cv1654-MMA (JMA)
CHP OFFICER J. CALDERA, CHP
OFFICER B. MONTGOMERY, and
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
[Doc. Nos. 3, 4]
Plaintiffs Edwin Allen Groover and Cheryl Ann Woomer (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants CHP Officer J. Caldera, CHP Officer B.
Montgomery, and the County of San Diego (collectively, “Defendants”). See Doc. No. 1.
On September 21, 2017, Defendants Caldera and Montgomery filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 41(b). See
Doc. No. 3. On that same date, Defendant County of San Diego filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Doc. No.
4. The Court set the motions for hearing on October 23, 2017, meaning that Plaintiffs
were required to file a response in opposition to both motions on or before October 9,
2017. See Civ. L.R. 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
prior to the noticed hearing”). Plaintiffs have not yet filed opposition briefs or statements
of non-opposition in response to Defendants’ motions to dismiss. See Docket.
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
Defendants’ motions to dismiss on the basis of Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose.1 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 plaintiffs fail to defend their complaint against motions
to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ unopposed motions to dismiss
[Doc. Nos. 3, 4], and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice. The Clerk of
Court is instructed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 28, 2017
Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the provisions of Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2 also 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?