Kajberouni v. Bear Valley Community Services District ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAFFI H. KAJBEROUNI, No. 1:19-cv-01703-NONE-JLT 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS 14 BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, a California public (Doc. No. 8) 15 entity, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Raffi H. Kajberouni filed this action on December 6, 2019 in this court against 19 defendants Bear Valley Community Services District and the Bear Valley Springs Police 20 Department. (Doc. No. 1 (“Complaint”).) The Complaint contains one federal claim under the 21 Fair Labor Standards Act and one state law claim under California’s Private Attorney General 22 Act. (Id. at 4–5.) In support of these claims, plaintiff alleged in a single sentence that he “worked 23 for Bear Valley Springs Police Department (BVSPD) and co-employer Bear Valley Community 24 Services District (BVCSD), which required him and other officers to don and doff their uniforms 25 and load their patrol vehicle with artillery, but failed to compensate said officers for such work.” 26 (Id. at 5.) 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 On March 3, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the case under Rule 8(a) of the Federal 2 | Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the Complaint’s allegations “fail[] to meet even the most 3 | basic pleading requirements.” (Doc. No. 8 at 5.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion to 4 | dismiss. 5 The court does not find it necessary to evaluate the pending motion to dismiss in detail 6 | because “[a] failure to file a timely opposition may also be construed by the Court as a non- 7 | opposition...” under Local Rule 230(c). Accordingly, the court grants defendants’ motion based 8 | on plaintiff's lack of response to the pending motion, which the court construes as a non- 9 | opposition to the granting of that motion. See Way v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 2:16-cv- 10 | 02244-TLN-KJN, 2019 WL 1405599, *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019) (granting unopposed motions 11 | to dismiss where plaintiff filed statement of non-opposition). No claims against any defendants 12 | survive, and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety. By virtue of the fact that plaintiff failed to 13 | oppose the motion to dismiss, plaintiff has likewise failed to advance any basis upon which this 14 | court could conclude the complaint could be cured by amendment. The court will therefore 15 | dismiss the action with prejudice. See Kristensen vy. Expansion Capital Grp., LLC, No. CV 16- 16 | 982-JW, *1 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2016) (granting unopposed motion to dismiss with prejudice and 17 | without leave to amend based on analogous local rule). 18 CONCLUSION 19 For the reasons set forth above: 20 (1) Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 8) is GRANTED and 21 plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and WITHOUT LEAVE TO 22 AMEND; and 23 (2) The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 24 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ December 3, 2020 Tak A naan 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28