Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Harris v. County of San Diego

United States District Court, S.D. California

July 9, 2019

FLORENCE HARRIS, an individual; J.H. and J.H., as Minors by and through their Mother and Guardian FLORENCE HARRIS, Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; SAN DIEGO HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY; POLINSKY CHILDRENS CENTER; DR. WENDY WRIGHT; NATASHA HALL, Social Worker; RADY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL; DOES 1 through 20 Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND [ECF NO. 6]

          HONORABLE BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Defendant County of San Diego's (“the County”) motion to dismiss the Complaint, which was scheduled for hearing on August 31, 2018. (ECF No. 6 (“MTD”).) Defendants Rady Children's Hospital and Dr. Wendy Wright joined the County's motion. (ECF Nos. 7, 9.) Plaintiff Florence Harris, on behalf of herself and her two minor sons, J.H and J.H. (“Plaintiffs”), filed a motion to continue the hearing date on August 28, 2018, (ECF No. 14), which the Court granted, (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiffs were given until September 28, 2018 to oppose Defendants' motion to dismiss, and the hearing date was reset for October 19, 2018. (Id.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend.

         DISCUSSION

         A. The Court May Grant an Unopposed Motion to Dismiss

         Plaintiffs have failed to respond to the motion to dismiss as of the date of this Order, and the deadline passed months ago. See CivLR 7.1.e.2 (providing that oppositions must be filed “not later than fourteen calendar days prior to the noticed hearing”). Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c provides, “[i]f 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.”

         A district court may grant an unopposed motion to dismiss pursuant to a local rule permitting dismissal. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding district court did not abuse discretion by summarily granting unopposed motion to dismiss pursuant to local rule that permitted but did not require dismissal). However, the Court must consider the following factors before granting a motion on that ground: “(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 on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986)).

         All five factors weigh in favor of dismissal. “[T]he public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The Court must manage its docket, and there is no risk of prejudice to Defendants, the moving parties. As for the fourth factor, although public policy favors disposition of cases on the merits, Plaintiff's failure to respond precludes the parties' ability to move the case forward and actually litigate the merits. This factor thus also weighs in favor of dismissal.

         Finally, the Court considers the availability of less drastic sanctions. Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing the Complaint on May 11, 2018. (ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”).) Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim on July 5, 2018. (MTD.) Plaintiffs were properly served with the motion, but have not filed any responsive pleading or otherwise prosecuted the case. (See MTD; ECF No. 15.) Given Plaintiffs' unexcused, extensive delay, the Court concludes dismissal without prejudice is both warranted and a less drastic sanction than dismissal with prejudice.

         B. The Complaint Fails to State a Claim

         The Court further concludes that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires that the plaintiffs' complaint state a “cognizable legal theory” or sufficient facts to support a legal claim. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the allegations of material fact in the plaintiff's complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). Although detailed factual allegations are not required, the factual allegations made “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief will survive a motion to dismiss. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

         1. Failure to Satisfy the Requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that a complaint contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Each allegation should be “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). In other words, a complaint must state “who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996).

         Here, the Complaint fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 8. The Complaint alleges violations under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, but it is deficient in that it does not state with some degree of particularity what overt acts were taken by each defendant in violation of which Plaintiffs' rights. See Rasidescu v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 435 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1099 (S.D. Cal. 2006) (setting forth basic pleading criteria, required of all plaintiffs, including pro se plaintiffs). Moreover, while the Complaint “also allege[s] a number of state-law causes of action, ” (Compl., 2), it does not describe how any act by any of the Defendants violated Plaintiffs' rights under state law.

         2. Failure to State a Claim Under ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.