O 1 JS-6 2

3

4

5

6

7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

10

11 SHILIN JIANG, Case №. 2:19-cv-00482-ODW (AFMx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS [56] 14 DA ZI CHEN et al.

15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff Shilin Jiang’s Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) his 18 complaint. (Pl.’s Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot”), ECF No. 56.) Having considered the papers 19 filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for decision 20 without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the Court 21 VACATES the hearing on May 4, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. 22 Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendants Da Zi Chen, the City of San 23 Gabriel, Officer Mike Messropian, Officer Oleg Zhivaga, and Officer Gabino Banuelos 24 based on federal question jurisdiction, asserting several claims under

25 and 1985, as well as various state law claims. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) On June 18, 26 2019, the Court dismissed Defendants Messropian and Banuelos with prejudice, 27 pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. (Order re Dismissal of Various Claims and 28 Defs., ECF No. 21.) On April 2, 2020, the Court dismissed Defendants City of San 1 Gabriel and Zhivaga with prejudice, also pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. 2 (Order, ECF No. 51.) As a result of these dismissals, only Plaintiff’s state law causes 3 of action against Defendant Chen remain. Plaintiff now moves to dismiss his complaint 4 and asks the Court to either maintain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state 5 law claims against Defendant Chen or dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice. 6 (Mot. 2.) 7 Plaintiff filed his Motion on April 6, 2020, and set the hearing for May 4, 2020. 8 (See Mot.) This hearing date required Defendant Chen to file any opposition no later 9 than April 13, 2020. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. To date, Defendant Chen, who is 10 proceeding pro se, has not filed an opposition. 11 Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file an opposition to a motion not 12 later than twenty-one days before the designated hearing date. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. A 13 party that does not file an opposition may be deemed to consent to the granting of the 14 motion. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12; see Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) 15 (upholding district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint based on failure to oppose 16 motion as required by local rules). Before granting a motion to dismiss, the court must 17 weigh: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of cases, (2) the court’s need to 18 manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants, (4) public policy favoring 19 disposition of cases on the merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic measures. 20

. A court is not required to consider these factors explicitly. Ismail v. Cty. of 21 Orange, SACV 10-00901 VBF (AJWx),

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 22 2012). In Ghazali, these factors were satisfied where the plaintiff received notice of the 23 motion and had “ample opportunity to respond.” Id.; see Ghazali,

. 24 Here, the motion hearing was scheduled for May 4, 2020. Therefore, Defendant 25 Chen’s opposition papers were due on April 13, 2020. Plaintiff’s counsel spoke with 26 Defendant Chen and his wife via telephone regarding the motion. (See Decl. of T. Yu, 27 ECF No. 56-1.) Also, Plaintiff provided notice of the motion to Defendant Chen via 28 United States mail. (See Proof of Service, ECF No. 56.) Thus, Defendant Chen had 1 | notice of the Motion and opportunity to respond. Now, two weeks beyond Defendant 2|| Chen’s deadline to oppose, he has not filed an opposition, timely or otherwise. 3 || Accordingly, the Court deems Defendant Chen’s failure to oppose consent to granting 4] the Motion. 5 Further, a district court “‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ if it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”” Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. 8 | § 1367(c)(3)). Here, all federal claims have been dismissed and the Court declines to 9 || exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. 10 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss, and 11 | DISMISSES Plaintiffs remaining state law claims against Defendant Chen without 12 || prejudice. (ECF No. 56.) As no claims remain against any Defendant, the Court 13 | VACATES all dates and deadlines. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 April 27, 2020 18

0 OTIS D’WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28