Opinion
21-cv-00605-BAS-MDD
06-16-2021
KATHY BRANCH, Plaintiff, v. LILAC HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 4)
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, United & States District Judge.
On December 30, 2020, Plaintiff Kathy Branch commenced this action against Defendant Lilac Holdings, LLC, in the Superior Court of California in the County of San Diego. (ECF No. 1-2.) Lilac Holdings was served with the complaint in the state action on March 8, 2021. (Id.) Lilac Holdings timely removed the action to federal court on April 7, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) On April 14, 2021, Lilac Holdings filed a motion to dismiss (“the Motion”), with a noticed hearing date of May 24, 2021. (ECF No. 4.) Under this district's local rules, Plaintiff's deadline to oppose the Motion fell on May 10, 2021. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(e)(2). Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion.
Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) provides that a failure to oppose a motion “may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the Court.” The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may properly grant a motion to dismiss for failure to respond pursuant to the court's local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for failure to file timely opposition papers where plaintiff had notice of the motion and ample to time to respond). Furthermore, even though federal courts will construe pleadings liberally in their favor, “pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54 (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012)).
Here, more than a month has passed since Plaintiffs deadline to file an opposition expired. Plaintiff was aware of the Motion and “was given ample time to respond to” it, but he failed to do so. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54. The Court therefore deems Plaintiffs failure to oppose Defendant's motion as consent to granting it. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(f)(3)(c). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.