1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSED RODRIGUEZ, Case No.: 21-CV-927 JLS (BGS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 13 v. MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.’S UNOPPOSED 14 MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES MOTION TO DISMISS INC., 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 3) 16

17 Presently before the Court is the Motion by Defendant Monterey Financial Services, 18 Inc. (“Defendant”) for Dismissal Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) (“Mot.,” ECF No. 3). No 19 opposition to the Motion has been filed. The Court vacated the hearing on the Motion and 20 took the matter under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 21 7.1(d)(1). See ECF No. 4. 22 The Ninth Circuit has held that, pursuant to a local rule, a district court summarily 23 may grant an unopposed motion to dismiss. See generally Ghazali v. Moran,

, 24 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for failure to file timely opposition papers where 25 plaintiff had notice of the motion and ample time to respond). Here, a local rule allows the 26 Court to grant the Motion. Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) provides: “If an opposing party 27 fails to file [an opposition] in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure 28 may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the 1 court.” Unless the Court orders otherwise, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), an 2 opposition must be filed 14 days prior to the noticed hearing. The hearing for the present 3 Motion was set for June 24, 2021, at 1:30 p.m.; thus, any opposition was due on June 10, 4 2021. 5 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the court is required to weigh several 6 factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 7 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 8 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 9 sanctions.” Ghazali,

(quoting Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1423 10 (9th Cir. 1986)). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the first and fourth factors cut in 11 opposite directions. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (first 12 factor always weighs in favor of dismissal); Hernandez v. City of El Monte,

, 13 401 (9th Cir. 1998) (fourth factor always weighs against dismissal). Therefore, the Court 14 considers the substance of factors two, three, and five. 15 Here, the second factor weighs in favor of dismissal. The Court must manage its 16 docket to ensure the efficient provision of justice. Plaintiff Josed Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) 17 had notice of the Motion yet failed to file a timely opposition. Plaintiff has not provided 18 any excuse for his failure timely to file an opposition to the present Motion. The Court 19 cannot continue waiting for Plaintiff to take action, and a case cannot move forward when 20 the plaintiff fails to defend its case. 21 As to the third factor, the Court finds no risk of prejudice to Defendant if it grants 22 the present Motion. In fact, Defendant has requested the dismissal. Thus, this factor also 23 weighs in favor of dismissal. 24 As to the fifth factor, where the plaintiff does not oppose dismissal, it is “unnecessary 25 for the Court to consider less drastic alternatives.” Rodriguez v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 26 No. 2:16–CV–5962–ODW(SK),

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2016). Still, 27 the Court did employ the less drastic alternative of giving notice to the Parties that no 28 opposition had been filed. On June 17, 2021, the Court filed an Order vacating the hearing 1 the Motion and taking the matter under submission. See ECF No. 4. In that Order, the 2 ||Court noted that no opposition had been filed. See

Still, Plaintiff filed no opposition. 3 || This factor therefore weighs in favor of dismissal as well. 4 Finding that the Ghazali factors weigh in favor of granting Defendant’s unopposed 5 ||Motion, the Court GRANTS the Motion (ECF No. 3) and DISMISSES WITHOUT 6 || PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Complaint. 7 Plaintiff MAY FILE an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in 8 || Defendant’s Motion within thirty (30) days of the date on which this Order is electronically 9 ||docketed. Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended pleading in accordance with this Order, 10 Court will enter a final order dismissing this civil action without prejudice based on 11 || Plaintiff's failure to prosecute in compliance with a court order requiring amendment. See 12 || Lira v. Herrera,

(9th Cir. 2005) (“Ifa plaintiff does not take advantage 13 ||of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the 14 complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”). While the Court is mindful that Plaintiff is 15 || pro se, Plaintiff is nonetheless required to comply with the Civil Local Rules and Federal 16 ||Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Ghazali,

(“[P]ro se litigants are bound 17 ||by the rules of procedure. [Plaintiff] did not follow them, and his case was properly 18 || dismissed.”) (citing King v. Ativeh,

(9th Cir. 1987)); Lopez v. Santoyo, 19 09CV00108 W RBB,

, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012) (“Plaintiffs 20 represent themselves must abide by the rules of the court in which they litigate.’’) 21 || (citing Carter v. Comm ’r,

(9th Cir. 1986); Bias v. Moynihan, 508 22 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007)). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 34 ||Dated: June 24, 2021 jae L. Lo memeaite- 5 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 26 27 28