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)

Download PDF
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)

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?