1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 XGOLF ABILENE, LLC, Case No.: 19cv308-MMA (RBB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS

14 WORKWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ,

15 Defendant. [Doc. No. 4] 16 17 On December 6, 2018, Plaintiff XGolf Abilene filed this action against Defendant 18 Workwell Technologies, Inc.1 in the 42nd District Court of Taylor County, Texas. Doc. 19 No. 1-1. Defendant removed the action to the Northern District of Texas on January 10, 20 2019. Doc. No. 1. Defendant subsequently moved to transfer the case to this Court, or in 21 the alternative moved to dismiss the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 12(b)(6). Doc. No. 4. Pursuant to the Northern District of Texas’s civil local rules, 23 Plaintiff was required to file a response in opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss on 24 or before February 7, 2019. See N.D. Tex. Civ. L.R. 7.1.d (stating that a response in 25 26 27 1 Defendant contends it was errantly named as uAccept in the complaint. See Doc. No. 1 at 1. For consistency, and the purposes of this Order, the Court refers to this entity as Workwell Technologies, 28 1 || opposition to a motion “must be filed within 21 days from the date the motion is □□□□□□□□ 2 || Plaintiff did not file an opposition and the Northern District of Texas transferred the case 3 || to this Court on February 11, 2019. Doc. No. 6. In a footnote, the court noted that “all 4 || dispositive motions should be addressed by the transferee Court.” Jd. at 1 n.2. 5 || Accordingly, the case was transferred to this Court with a fully briefed motion to dismiss. 6 || See Docket. 7 The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may grant an unopposed motion to 8 dismiss where a local rule permits, but does not require, it to do so. See generally, 9 || Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995). Here, Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c 10 || provides, “[i]f an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required by [the 11 |/relevant] Civil Local Rule[s], that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a 12 || motion or other request for ruling by the court.” As such, the Court has the option of 13 || granting Defendant’s motion on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to oppose. Generally, 14 || public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits. See Hernandez v. City of El 15 || Monte,

(9th Cir. 1998). However, a case cannot move forward toward 16 resolution on the merits when the plaintiff fails to defend his or her complaint against a 17 12 motion. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s unopposed motion to 18 || dismiss, and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is 19 instructed to close this case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: August 21, 2019 Mikel U- Ll 22 Hon. Michael M. Anello tell 93 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28