Opinion
Case No. 3:12-cv-02336-GPC-JMA
02-21-2013
ROBERT E. OSUNA et al., Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM D. GORE, in his Official Private Capacity, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO DISMISS
(ECF NO. 4)
On September 25, 2012, Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Defendants, asserting various foreclosure related claims. (ECF No. 1.)
On October 18, 2012, defendants William D. Gore and San Diego County Sheriff's Department filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 4.) This Court set Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for a hearing on March 1, 2013, and issued a briefing schedule requiring any response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss to be filed on or before November 16, 2012. (ECF No. 5.) To date, the Court has received no response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss from Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as unopposed. See CivLR 7.1.5.3; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal."). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, currently set for March 1, 2013, is VACATED.
The Court notes that several items of mail have been returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address available. Thus, Plaintiffs may not have received notice of this Court's scheduling order. Plaintiffs, however, have not updated their mailing address with the Court as required by Civil Local Rule 83.11, which is, in itself grounds for dismissal.
_____________
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge