Fredeking et al v. Aurora Behavioral Health Center, Inc.
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ROBERT FREDEKING and CRYSTAL
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
[Doc. No. 4]
Case No.: 3:17-CV-01807-CAB-(KSC)
AURORA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
On September 20, 2017, Defendant Aurora Behavioral Health Center, Inc. filed a
motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 4]. More than a month has passed, and Plaintiffs have not
filed an opposition.
Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2 requires a party opposing a motion file an opposition or
statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing. CivLR
7.1.e.2. Failure to comply with the local rules setting a deadline to oppose a motion “may
constitute a consent to the granting of a motion.” CivLR 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). That Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se
in this action does not excuse their 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 filed proof of service of the motion, signaling that Plaintiffs were
served at the address provided on the face of the complaint. [Doc. No. 5.] The motion had
a noticed hearing date of October 25, 2017. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion
was due on October 11, 2017. As of the date of this order, Plaintiffs have not filed a
Additionally, the Court has reviewed the complaint and notes that it fails to identify
any claims asserted against Defendant and does not set forth any factual allegations. [Doc.
No. 1.] See e.g., Bielma v. Bostic, Case No.: 15cv1606-MMA (BLM), 2016 WL 29624,
*8 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2016) (quoting McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996))
(A complaint that lacks “simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing
for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential elements of a complaint.”). Furthermore,
the complaint purports to be a class action and a plaintiff appearing pro se cannot act as
counsel for a class.
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss
[Doc. No. 4] is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 27, 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?