Garcia v. LHO San Diego Hotel One, L.P.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORLANDO GARCIA, Case No. 20cv2371-MMA (JLB) Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS LHO SAN DIEGO HOTEL ONE, L.P., et al., [Doc. No. 4]

Defendants.

Plaintiff Orlando Garcia initiated this disability discrimination action in state court against Defendants LHO San Diego Hotel One, L.P. and LHO San Diego Hotel One Lessee, Inc. Defendants timely removed the action to this Court and now move to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). See Doc. No. 4. The motion was filed on December 11, 2020 and set for hearing on January 25, 2021. As such, Plaintiff’s response in opposition to the motion was due on or before January 11, 2021. See CivLR 7.1.e.2. To date, Plaintiff has not submitted an opposition brief, nor has he requested an extension of time in which to do so, despite being properly served with the motion.

As set forth in this District’s Civil Local Rules, “[i]f an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” CivLR 7.1.f.3.c. The Ninth Circuit has held a district court may properly grant an unopposed motion to dismiss pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a motion for failure to respond. See generally Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). As such, the Court has the option of granting Defendants’ motion on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to respond, and it chooses to do so. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and DISMISSES this action in its entirety without prejudice and without leave to amend. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: January 21, 2021 Vath whl WM ae Nhe HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge