Holt v. Noble House Hotels & Resort, LTD et al

Filing 66

ORDER Granting 64 Unopposed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. In light of Noble House's statement of non-opposition, the Court grants Plaintiff's unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings [Doc. No. 64], and dismisses with prejudice Defendant's fifth, eighth, ninth, sixteenth, and twenty-first affirmative defenses. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 12/11/2018. (rmc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

KATHLEEN HOLT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

15

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 17cv2246-MMA (BLM)

v.
NOBLE HOUSE HOTELS & RESORT,
LTD; and DOES 1 TO 25,

16

Defendant.

[Doc. No. 64]

17
18

Plaintiff Kathleen Holt (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others

19

similarly situated, filed this class action against Defendant Noble House Hotels & Resort,

20

LTD (“Noble House”) alleging causes of action for violations of California’s False

21

Advertising Law (“FAL”),1 California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), and

22

California’s Consumers Legal Remedy Act (“CLRA”). Doc. No. 35 (“FAC”). On

23

November 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Doc. No. 64. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks

25

dismissal with prejudice of the following affirmative defenses raised by Noble House:

26
27
28

1

The FAL claim is raised by Plaintiff in her individual capacity only. See Doc. No. 63 at 1.
1
17cv2246-MMA (BLM)

1

(1) laches (fifth affirmative defense); (2) failure to state a cause of action for attorneys’

2

fees (eighth affirmative defense); (3) statute of limitations pursuant to California

3

Business and Professions Code § 17208 (ninth affirmative defense); (4) statute of

4

limitations pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 337, 338, 339, and 340

5

(sixteenth affirmative defense); and (5) reservation of rights to assert additional

6

affirmative defenses (twenty-first affirmative defense). Id. at 2. On December 3, 2018,

7

Noble House filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.2 Doc. No. 65.

8

The Court finds this matter suitable for determination on the papers submitted and

9

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1.
In light of Noble House’s statement of non-opposition, the Court GRANTS

10
11

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings [Doc. No. 64], and

12

DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Defendant’s fifth, eighth, ninth, sixteenth, and

13

twenty-first affirmative defenses.3

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 11, 2018

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Additionally, a district court may properly grant an unopposed motion pursuant to local rule where the
local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a motion for failure to oppose. See Ghazali v.
Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c. provides that a party’s failure to
oppose a motion “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 Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings
on the basis of Noble House’s failure to oppose. 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 defendant fails to defend its affirmative
defenses against a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
3
The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice. See Doc. No. 64-4; Ruiz v. City of Santa
Maria, 160 F.3d 543, 548 n.13 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding that judicial notice is inappropriate where the
facts to be noticed are not relevant to the disposition of the issues before the court).
2
17cv2246-MMA (BLM)