Opinion
CASE NO. 13cv2803-GPC(WMC)
03-14-2014
JOSE NODAL and MARTHA NODAL, Plaintiffs, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC; FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION; and DOES 1-10, inclusive Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO DISMISS
[Dkt. No. 4.]
On December 30, 2013, Defendants Caliber Home Loans, Inc. and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. (Dkt. No. 4.) The Court set a briefing schedule requiring Plaintiffs to file a response by January 31, 2014. (Dkt. No. 7.) To date, Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition.
Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2. requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing. Failure to comply with these rules "may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion." Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c. District courts have broad discretion to enact and apply local rules, including dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an unopposed motion to dismiss under local rule by deeming a pro se litigant's failure to oppose as consent to granting the motion); United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). Before dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, the district court "weigh[s] 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, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986)).
Here, the Court concludes that "the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation," "the court's need to manage its docket," and "the risk of prejudice to the defendants" weigh in favor of granting the Motion to Dismiss based on Plaintiffs' failure to file an opposition. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. The majority of these factors weigh in favor of dismissal.
Because Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c, the Court finds good cause to grant Defendants' unopposed motions to dismiss. The Court's docket reflects that Plaintiffs were served with a copy of the motion and the Court's briefing schedule. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss as unopposed. See Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c; see also Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, currently set for March 21, 2014, is VACATED.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED.
___________________
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge