Garcia v. Souldriver, L.P. et al

Filing 6

ORDER granting 5 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and dimisses without prejudice Plaintiffs complaint. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing set for June 9, 2021. Signed by Judge Todd W. Robinson on 6/4/2021. (jms)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ORLANDO GARCIA, Case No.: 21-CV-82 TWR (MSB) Plaintiff, 12 13 14 16 SOULDRIVER, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership; SOULDRIVER LESSEE, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and Does 1-10, 17 ORDER VACATING HEARING AND GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS v. Defendants. 15 (ECF No. 5) 18 19 On October 30, 2020, Plaintiff Orlando Garcia filed this action against Defendants 20 Souldriver, L.P. and Souldriver Lessee, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of 21 San Diego. (See ECF No. 1-1.) On January 15, 2021, Defendants removed, (see ECF No. 22 1), and on March 3, 2021, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (“Mot.,” ECF No. 5). The Court set the Motion 24 for hearing on June 9, 2021. Pursuant to the undersigned’s Standing Order for Civil Cases, 25 Plaintiff was required to file a response in opposition to the Motion on or before May 12, 26 2021. See also S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7.1.e.2 (stating that “each party opposing a motion . . . 27 must file that opposition or statement of non-opposition . . . not later than fourteen (14) 28 calendar days prior to the noticed hearing”). Plaintiff has not yet filed an opposition brief 1 21-CV-82 TWR (MSB) 1 or statement of non-opposition in response to Defendants’ Motion. (See Docket.) 2 The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may grant an unopposed motion to 3 dismiss where a local rule permits but does not require it to do so. See generally, Ghazali 4 v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c provides, “[i]f 5 an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required by [the relevant] Civil 6 Local Rule[s], that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other 7 request for ruling by the court.” As such, the Court has the option of granting Defendants’ 8 Motion on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to oppose. Generally, public policy favors 9 disposition of cases on their merits. See Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 10 (9th Cir. 1998). However, a case cannot move towards resolution on the merits when the 11 plaintiff fails to defend his or her complaint against a Rule 12 motion. Accordingly, the 12 Court VACATES the hearing set for June 9, 2021, GRANTS Defendants’ unopposed 13 Motion to Dismiss, and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: June 4, 2021 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 21-CV-82 TWR (MSB)

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?