(PC) Fairchild-Littlefield v. Amezcua ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GIGI FAIRCHILD-LITTLEFIELD, 1:20-cv-00799-JLT-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON- 13 vs. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT AMEZCUA’S MOTION TO DISMISS 14 R. AMEZCUA, et al., WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 39.) 16 17 18 On September 22, 2022, defendant Amezcua (“Defendant”) filed a motion to dismiss. 19 (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff Gigi Fairchild-Littlefield was required to file an opposition or a statement 20 of non-opposition to the motion within twenty-one days, but has not done so. Local Rule 230(l). 21 Local Rule 230(l) provides that the failure to oppose a motion “may be deemed a waiver 22 of any opposition to the granting of the motion . . .” The court may deem any failure to oppose 23 Defendant’s motion to dismiss as a waiver and thereafter recommend that the motion be granted 24 on that basis. 25 Further, failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper grounds for dismissal. 26 U.S. v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). Thus, a court may dismiss an action for the 27 plaintiff's failure to oppose a motion to dismiss where the applicable local rule determines that 28 failure to oppose a motion will be deemed a waiver of opposition. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 1 52 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 838 (1995) (dismissal upheld even where plaintiff 2 contends he did not receive motion to dismiss, where plaintiff had adequate notice, pursuant to 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), and time to file opposition); cf. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722, 725 (9th 4 Cir. 1995); Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949-50 (9th Cir. 1993) (motion for 5 summary judgment cannot be granted simply as a sanction for a local rules violation, without an 6 appropriate exercise of discretion). The court may also dismiss this case for Plaintiff’s failure to 7 comply with the court’s order. See Local Rule 110; Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 8 (9th Cir. 2002) 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 11 opposition, or statement of non-opposition, to the motion to dismiss filed by 12 Defendant Amezcua on September 22, 2022; and 13 2. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that 14 this case be dismissed. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: October 22, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28