O 1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

10

11 ARIC CHO, Case № 2:23-cv-03584-ODW (MAAx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED

13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS [25]

14 AMAZON RETAIL, LLC,

15 Defendant.

16 17 Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 18 Complaint. (Mot. Dismiss (“Motion” or “Mot.”), ECF No. 25; see also Proof of 19 Service re Mot., ECF No. 26.) After carefully considering the papers filed in 20 connection with the Motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for decision 21 without oral argument and therefore VACATES the July 17, 2023 hearing. Fed. R. 22 Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. Because Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, the 23 Court GRANTS the Motion. 24 Central District of California Civil Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to 25 file an opposition to any motion at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the date 26 designated for hearing the motion. Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 provides that “[t]he 27 failure to file any required paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be 28 deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion.” See Ghazali v. Moran, 1]

(9th Cir. 1995) (upholding district court’s dismissal of □□□□□□□□□□□ 2 | complaint based on plaintiff's failure to oppose motion as required by local rules). 3 | Prior to dismissing an action pursuant to a local rule, courts must weigh: (1) the public 4|| interest in expeditious resolution of cases, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket, 5 || (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) public policy favoring disposition of 6 || cases on the merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic measures. /d. at 53 (quoting 7 || Henderson v. Duncan,

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

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012) (first 10 || citing Henderson,

; and then citing Malone vy. U.S. Postal Serv., 11}

(9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied,

(1988)). 12 The Court has considered the Ghazali factors and is persuaded that granting the 13 | Motion is appropriate. The hearing on Defendant’s Motion was set for July 17, 2023. 14 | Plaintiff's opposition was therefore due by June 26, 2023. As of the date of this order, 15 | Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or any other filing, and nothing in the record can 16 || be construed as a request for a continuance. Accordingly, the Court deems Plaintiff's 17 || failure to oppose as consent to granting the Motion to Dismiss, and _ therefore 18 | GRANTS the Motion. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff's Complaint is accordingly 19 | DISMISSED. All dates and deadlines are VACATED and the Clerk of the Court 20 || shall close this case. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 July 10, 2023 25 NF “As

7 OTIS D. IGHT, II 08 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE