Opinion
2:22-cv-07272-ODW (PDx)
12-05-2022
RAMZI DANIEL, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT ALLARD et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [18]
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Presently before the Court is Defendant Robert Allard's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Ramzi Daniel's Complaint. (Mot. Dismiss (“Motion” or “Mot.”), ECF No. 18.) After carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument and vacated the December 5, 2022 hearing. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. Because Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file an opposition to any motion at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the date designated for hearing the motion. Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 provides that “[t]he failure to file any required paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion.” See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (upholding district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint based on plaintiff's failure to oppose motion as required by local rules). Prior to dismissing an action pursuant to a local rule, courts must weigh: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of cases, (2) the court's need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic measures. Id. at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “Explicit findings with respect to these factors are not required.” Ismail v. County of Orange, SACV 10-00901 VBF (AJW), 2012 WL 12964893, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012) (first citing Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424; and then citing Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 129 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 819 (1988)).
The Court has considered the Ghazali factors and is persuaded that granting the Motion is appropriate. The hearing on Defendant Allard's Motion was set for December 5, 2022. Plaintiff's opposition was therefore due by November 14, 2022. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, or any other filing that could be construed as a request for a continuance. Accordingly, the Court deems Plaintiff's failure to oppose as consent to granting the Motion to Dismiss, and therefore GRANTS the Motion. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed as against Defendant Allard.
IT IS SO ORDERED.