Fredeking et al v. Aurora Behavioral Health Center, Inc.

Filing 6

ORDER on Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 4 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 10/27/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jjg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ROBERT FREDEKING and CRYSTAL
ARANDA,

15

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
[Doc. No. 4]

Plaintiffs,

13
14

Case No.: 3:17-CV-01807-CAB-(KSC)

v.
AURORA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
CENTER, INC,

16

Defendant.

17
18

On September 20, 2017, Defendant Aurora Behavioral Health Center, Inc. filed a

19

motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 4]. More than a month has passed, and Plaintiffs have not

20

filed an opposition.

21

Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2 requires a party opposing a motion file an opposition or

22

statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing. CivLR

23

7.1.e.2. Failure to comply with the local rules setting a deadline to oppose a motion “may

24

constitute a consent to the granting of a motion.” CivLR 7.1.f.3.c. District courts have

25

broad discretion to enact and apply local rules, including dismissal of a case for failure to

26

comply with the local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming

27

grant of an unopposed motion to dismiss under local rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s

28
1
3:17-CV-01807-CAB-(KSC)

1

failure to oppose as consent to granting the motion). That Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se

2

in this action does not excuse their failure to follow the rules of procedure that govern other

3

litigants. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow

4

the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”).

5

Here, Defendant filed proof of service of the motion, signaling that Plaintiffs were

6

served at the address provided on the face of the complaint. [Doc. No. 5.] The motion had

7

a noticed hearing date of October 25, 2017. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion

8

was due on October 11, 2017. As of the date of this order, Plaintiffs have not filed a

9

response.

10

Additionally, the Court has reviewed the complaint and notes that it fails to identify

11

any claims asserted against Defendant and does not set forth any factual allegations. [Doc.

12

No. 1.] See e.g., Bielma v. Bostic, Case No.: 15cv1606-MMA (BLM), 2016 WL 29624,

13

*8 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2016) (quoting McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996))

14

(A complaint that lacks “simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing

15

for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential elements of a complaint.”). Furthermore,

16

the complaint purports to be a class action and a plaintiff appearing pro se cannot act as

17

counsel for a class.

18

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss

19

[Doc. No. 4] is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED

20

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

21

It is SO ORDERED.

22

Dated: October 27, 2017

23
24
25
26
27
28
2
3:17-CV-01807-CAB-(KSC)