Opinion
2:11-CV-725 JCM (GWF).
August 8, 2011
ORDER
Presently before the court is defendant Wells Fargo Bank's motion to dismiss. (Doc. #10). To date, no response has been filed.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(b), an opposing party's failure to file a timely response to any motion constitutes the party's consent to the granting of the motion and is proper grounds for dismissal. U.S. v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). However, prior to dismissal, the district court is required to weigh several factors: "(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions." Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).
In light of the plaintiff's failure to respond and weighing the factors identified in Ghazali, the court finds dismissal appropriate.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. #10) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.