Opinion
2:24-cv-00142-ODW (Ex)
12-11-2024
OCEAN WEST FOOD SERVICES, LLC et al., Plaintiffs, v. QI QIANG HUANG et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS [54]
Otis D. Wright, II United States District Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff-Counterdefendants' (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Dismiss Defendant-Counterclaimants' (“Defendants”) first, second, third, and fourth counterclaims. (Mot. Dismiss (“Motion” or “Mot.”), ECF No. 54.) 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 9, 2024 hearing. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. Because Defendants have not filed an opposition, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
II. DISCUSSION
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)). In Ghazali, the Ninth Circuit found these factors satisfied where the plaintiff received notice of the motion and had ample opportunity to respond yet failed to do so. See 46 F.3d at 54.
The Court has considered the Ghazali factors and is persuaded that granting Plaintiffs' Motion is appropriate. The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion was set for December 9, 2024. Defendants' opposition was therefore due by November 18, 2024. However, Defendants did not file an opposition. Instead, on December 3, 2024, Defendants requested leave to file a Second Amended Counterclaim. (Req., ECF No. 59). Plaintiffs opposed this request, (Opp'n Req., ECF No. 64), and the Court denied it, (Min. Order, ECF No. 66). Regardless, Defendants' filing is untimely, whether construed as an opposing paper-deadline expired on November 18, 2024- or a request to amend their pleading-deadline expired on July 29, 2024. (Scheduling Order 25, ECF No. 36.)
As Defendants' filing was untimely-both as an opposing paper and as a request to file an amended pleading-the Court declines to consider it. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12 (“The Court may decline to consider any memorandum or other document not filed within the deadline set by order or local rule.”) The Court thus deems Defendants' failure to oppose as consent to granting Plaintiffs' Motion and dismisses the first, second, third, and fourth counterclaims.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 54.) Defendants' first, second, third, and fourth counterclaims are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
IT IS SO ORDERED.