UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 19, 2011
JAMES HORNIK, PLAINTIFF,
CITY OF LOS ANGELES; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELS; ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT [Motion filed on December 6, 2010]
This matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants. Because Plaintiff has neither filed an Opposition nor a Notice of non-Opposition to this Motion, the court dismisses the complaint with prejudice.
Plaintiff James Hornik filed this suit in Los Angeles Superior Court on September 24, 2010. His Complaint alleges a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights. Those alleged violations include assault and battery, false arrest, malicious prosecution, negligence, and deprivation of his civil rights by the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and four named Los Angeles Police Officers. On November 29, 2010, Defendants removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Thereafter, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety without leave to amend.
Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to any motion at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the date designated for the hearing of the motion.
C.D. CAL. L.R. 7-9.
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."
C.D. CAL. L.R. 7-12.
The hearing on these Motions was scheduled for January 3, 2010. On the court's own motion, the hearing date was continued from January 3, 2011 to January 10, 2011. Plaintiff's Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition was therefore due by December 20, 2010. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed any response to Defendant's motion, nor any other papers that could be construed as a request for an extension of time to file or a request to move the hearing date. The Court deems Plaintiff's failure to oppose the motion consent to granting the Defendant's motion and dismisses the complaint.
In addition, the SCHEDULING CONFERENCE set for March 14, 2011 is VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.