Rashidi v. GG Homes, Inc.

Full title: ARJI RASHIDI, Plaintiff, v. GG HOMES, INC, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Jun 15, 2021

21-cv-00209-BAS-AHG (S.D. Cal. Jun. 15, 2021)

Opinion

21-cv-00209-BAS-AHG

06-15-2021

ARJI RASHIDI, Plaintiff, v. GG HOMES, INC, Defendant.

Hon. Cvnthia Bashant United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 10)

Hon. Cvnthia Bashant United States District Judge

On February 3, 2021, Plaintiff Arji Rashidi, proceeding pro se, commenced this action against Defendant GG Homes, Inc. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) After GG Homes filed its first motion to dismiss the Complaint, Rashidi amended the Complaint. (First. Am. Compl., ECF No. 9.) GG Homes renewed its motion to dismiss (“the Motion”), with a noticed hearing date of June 7, 2021. (ECF No. 10.) Under this district's local rules, Plaintiff's deadline to oppose the Motion fell on May 24, 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, it has been more than 21 days since Plaintiff's 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. 10) and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.