Opinion
Case No. 2:17-cv-08293-ODW (AGR)
01-22-2018
BERNADINE HARRIS; OUDY WALL; and MARIA REYES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity; ERIC GARCETTI, in his official capacity as Mayor of Los Angeles; CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity; CITY OF INGLEWOOD, a public entity; CITY OF HAWTHORNE, a public entity; CITY OF GARDENA, a public entity; CITY OF TORRANCE, a public entity; CITY OF CARSON, a public entity; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' MOTION TO DISMISS AS UNOPPOSED [30]
Plaintiffs Bernadine Harris, Oudy Wall, and Maria Reyes filed this action in Los Angeles Superior Court on August 29, 2017, and assert numerous claims for Defendants' purported violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), among other derivative causes of action. (ECF No. 1-1.) On November 14, 2017, the City of Los Angeles removed this case. (ECF No. 1.) Several of the defendants joined in the removal, and then moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. (ECF Nos. 8-9, 14, 21.) On December 22, 2018, the Court granted several defendants' motions to dismiss on the grounds that they were unopposed. (ECF No. 29.)
On December 22, 2017, the County of Los Angeles moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, and set the hearing on the Motion for January 22, 2018. (ECF No. 30.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs' opposition to the County's Motion to Dismiss was due on January 2, 2018. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. On January 11, 2018, the County notified the Court that Plaintiffs had not opposed their Motion. (ECF No. 31.) To date, Plaintiffs still have not opposed it.
Twenty-one days before January 22, 2018 is actually January 1, 2018. However, the due date moves to the following day given the holiday. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a).
Central District Local Rule 7-12 allows the Court to grant motions as unopposed in the event that a party does not respond. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12 ("The failure to file [a responsive document] may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion...."); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal on the basis of unopposed motion pursuant to local rule). In determining whether to grant an unopposed motion, courts weigh: "(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 on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions." Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the first and fourth factors cut in opposite directions. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (first factor always weighs in favor of dismissal); Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 401 (9th Cir. 1998) (fourth factor always weighs against dismissal).
Here, the second factor weighs in favor of dismissal. The Court must manage its docket to ensure the efficient provision of justice. In granting the other defendants' motions as unopposed, the Court noted that Plaintiffs had notice of four separate motions, which were filed over the course of three weeks, yet failed to oppose any of them. (Order, ECF No. 29.) Now, Plaintiffs fail to oppose yet another motion. The Court's need to manage its docket favors granting the County's motion to dismiss, as unopposed.
The third factor addresses the potential risk of prejudice to the defendants. Here, the risk of prejudice to the defendants is slight. If, after the Court grants the motions, Plaintiffs do not seek reconsideration or other relief, then their case will be dismissed as against the moving defendants. In the event that they do seek reconsideration, and the Court grants it, the moving defendants may simply refile the motions they have already prepared. The nature of the ADA claims asserted here do not require immediate action from defendants, and a slight delay in the event Plaintiffs ultimately decide to pursue this action will not significantly prejudice defendants.
As for the availability of less drastic sanctions, Plaintiffs' failure to oppose the fifth motion to dismiss in this case demonstrates that Plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting this action. See Rodriguez v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, No. 2:16-CV-5962-ODW(SK), 2016 WL 4581402, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2016) ("Where the Plaintiff does not oppose dismissal, it is unnecessary for the Court to consider less drastic alternatives."); see also Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel in this putative class action, and thus cannot claim ignorance of deadlines. Furthermore, on November 16, 2017, the Court issued a minute order advising that "Counsel are STRONGLY encouraged to review the Central District's website for additional information." (ECF No. 5.) The Court intended this admonition to provide fair warning to counsel that they need to be familiar with the Local Rules, which provide the requisite deadlines to oppose motions like the one currently pending before the Court. Twenty days have passed since the deadline for Plaintiffs to oppose this motion, but they still have not sought relief from the Court. Plaintiffs' lack of diligence is highlighted by the fact that Plaintiffs' counsel is aware of the action since he previously filed dismissals on behalf of Harris (ECF Nos. 24, 25), but still failed to oppose the four prior motions to dismiss, and now this one. While there may be less drastic sanctions available, this factor does not weigh heavily in either direction.
On balance, the Ghazali factors weigh in favor of granting the County's motion to dismiss as unopposed. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the County's Motion. (ECF No. 30.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 22, 2018
/s/ _________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE