Case 2:22-cv-07272-ODW-PD Document 24 Filed 12/05/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:142

O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

10

11 RAMZI DANIEL, Case № 2:22-cv-07272-ODW (PDx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS [18] 14 ROBERT ALLARD et al.,

15 Defendants.

16 17 Presently before the Court is Defendant Robert Allard’s Motion to Dismiss 18 Plaintiff Ramzi Daniel’s Complaint. (Mot. Dismiss (“Motion” or “Mot.”), ECF 19 No. 18.) After carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, 20 the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument and 21 vacated the December 5, 2022 hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 22 Because Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 23 Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file 24 an opposition to any motion at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the date designated 25 for hearing the motion. Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 provides that “[t]he failure to 26 file any required paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed 27 consent to the granting or denial of the motion.” See Ghazali v. Moran,

, 28 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (upholding district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint based Cage 2:22-cv-07272-ODW-PD Document 24 Filed 12/05/22 Page2of2 Page ID#:143

1 || on plaintiffs failure to oppose motion as required by local rules). Prior to dismissing 2} an action pursuant to a local rule, courts must weigh: (1) the public interest in 3 || expeditious resolution of cases, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk 4|| of prejudice to the defendants, (4) public policy favoring disposition of cases on the 5 || merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic measures. /d. at 53 (quoting Henderson 6 || v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986)). “Explicit findings with respect to 7 || these factors are not required.” Ismail v. County of Orange, SACV 10-00901 VBF 8 | (AJW),

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012) (first citing Henderson, 9 ||

; and then citing Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

, 129 10 } (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied,

(1988)). 11 The Court has considered the Ghazali factors and is persuaded that granting the 12 | Motion is appropriate. The hearing on Defendant Allard’s Motion was set for 13 | December 5, 2022. Plaintiff's opposition was therefore due by November 14, 2022. 14 || As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, or any other filing 15 || that could be construed as a request for a continuance. Accordingly, the Court deems 16 | Plaintiffs failure to oppose as consent to granting the Motion to Dismiss, and 17 || therefore GRANTS the Motion. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed as 18 || against Defendant Allard. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 December 5, 2022 23 \ Fe 2 é 24 Lies Lie. Af 5 OTIS D. IGHT, II 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28