United States District Court, S.D. California
March 18, 2014
DIANNE LOGGINS, Plaintiff,
COUNTY of SAN DIEGO HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY; CHILD WELFARE SERVICES; Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants.
WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.
The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant County of San Diego ("Defendant"). (ECF No. 7).
On October 28, 2013, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and civil rights and tort violations under state law. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges Defendant engaged in "discriminatory practices [when]... [Defendant] refused to cooperate with [Plaintiff], resulting in unjustifiable disparate treatment. [Plaintiff] was denied equal access and equal treatment because of her race and age." Id. ¶ 7.
On December 4, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 7). The docket reflects that Plaintiff did not file an opposition.
A district court may properly grant an unopposed motion pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a motion for failure to respond. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Civil Local Rule 7.1 provides: "If an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court." S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). "Although there is... a [public] policy favoring disposition on the merits, it is the responsibility of the moving party to move towards that disposition at a reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics." In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1454 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirming grant of motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute); see also Steel v. City of San Diego, No. 09cv1743, 2009 WL 3715257, at *1 (S.D. Cal., Nov. 5, 2009) (dismissing action pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 for plaintiff's failure to respond to a motion to dismiss).
The docket reflects that Plaintiff was served with the Motion to Dismiss by electronic filing as to Monica L. Montgomery at the Law Offices of Monica L. Montgomery, 121 Broadway, Ste. 553, San Diego, CA 92101. ( See ECF No. 7-1). The Motion to Dismiss and the Court's docket reflect that a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was noticed for February 3, 2014. ( See ECF No. 7-2). Civil Local Rule 7.1 provides: "each party opposing a motion... must file that opposition... with the clerk... not later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the noticed hearing." S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 7.1(e)(2). The docket reflects that Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. 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 filed by Defendants for failure to file an opposition. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED as follows: the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.