Groover et al v. Caldera et al

Filing 8

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

EDWIN ALLEN GROOVER and
CHERYL ANN WOOMER,

15
16
17

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED
MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Plaintiffs,

13
14

Case No.: 17cv1654-MMA (JMA)

v.
CHP OFFICER J. CALDERA, CHP
OFFICER B. MONTGOMERY, and
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
Defendants.

[Doc. Nos. 3, 4]

18
19

Plaintiffs Edwin Allen Groover and Cheryl Ann Woomer (collectively,

20

“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants CHP Officer J. Caldera, CHP Officer B.

21

Montgomery, and the County of San Diego (collectively, “Defendants”). See Doc. No. 1.

22

On September 21, 2017, Defendants Caldera and Montgomery filed a motion to dismiss

23

Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 41(b). See

24

Doc. No. 3. On that same date, Defendant County of San Diego filed a motion to dismiss

25

Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Doc. No.

26

4. The Court set the motions for hearing on October 23, 2017, meaning that Plaintiffs

27

were required to file a response in opposition to both motions on or before October 9,

28

2017. See Civ. L.R. 7.1.e.2 (stating that “each party opposing a motion . . . must file that
1
17cv1654-MMA (JMA)

1

opposition or statement of non-opposition . . . not later than fourteen (14) calendar days

2

prior to the noticed hearing”). Plaintiffs have not yet filed opposition briefs or statements

3

of non-opposition in response to Defendants’ motions to dismiss. See Docket.

4

The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may grant an unopposed motion to

5

dismiss where a local rule permits, but does not require, it to do so. See generally,

6

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c

7

provides, “[i]f an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil

8

Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or

9

other request for ruling by the court.” As such, the Court has the option of granting

10

Defendants’ motions to dismiss on the basis of Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose.1 Generally,

11

public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits. See Hernandez v. City of El

12

Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). However, a case cannot move forward toward

13

resolution on the merits when the plaintiffs fail to defend their complaint against motions

14

to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ unopposed motions to dismiss

15

[Doc. Nos. 3, 4], and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice. The Clerk of

16

Court is instructed to close this case.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: November 28, 2017

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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.
1

2
17cv1654-MMA (JMA)