Dewey Demetro, Jr. v.UNITED STATES ( 2024 )

O 1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California 10 11 DEWEY DEMETRO, JR., Case № 2:24-cv-05519-ODW (RAOx) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS [9] 14 UNITED STATES, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 18 Complaint. (Mot. Dismiss (“Motion” or “Mot.”), ECF No. 9.) Because Plaintiff has 19 not filed an opposition, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 20 Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file 21 an opposition to any motion at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the date designated 22 for hearing the motion. Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 provides that “[t]he failure to 23 file any required paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed 24 consent to the granting or denial of the motion.” See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 25 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (upholding district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint based 26 on plaintiff’s failure to oppose motion as required by local rules). Prior to dismissing 27 an action pursuant to a local rule, courts must weigh: (1) the public interest in 28 expeditious resolution of cases, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk 1 || of prejudice to the defendants, (4) public policy favoring disposition of cases on the 2 | merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic measures. Jd. at 53 (quoting Henderson 3 || v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “Explicit findings with respect to 4|| these factors are not required.” Ismail v. County of Orange, SACV 10-00901 VBF 5 || (AJW), 2012 WL 12964893, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012) (first citing Henderson, 6 || 779 F.2d at 1424; and then citing Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 129 7 || (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 819 (1988)). 8 The Court has considered the Ghazali factors and is persuaded that granting the 9 || Motion is appropriate. The hearing on Defendant’s Motion was set for August 12, 10 | 2024. Plaintiffs opposition was therefore due by July 22, 2024. As of the date of this 11 || Order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, or any other filing that could be construed 12 || as a request for a continuance. Accordingly, the Court deems Plaintiff's failure to 13 || oppose as consent to granting the Motion to Dismiss, and therefore GRANTS the 14 |} Motion. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 August 8, 2024 19 Rae we 4 1 OTIS D. GHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28