1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 In re: THE VIDA L. EDDY LIVING Case No.: 24-cv-656-L-DDL TRUST 11 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 12 BRADLEY PASSICK, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 13 Plaintiff, DEVELOPMENT’S MOTION TO 14 v. DISMISS

15 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF [ECF No. 7] HOUSING AND URBAN 16 DEVELOPMENT, 17 Defendant. 18

19 Pending before the Court is Defendant United States Department of Housing and 20 Urban Development’s (“HUD”) motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure 12(b)(1) and (5) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and insufficient service. 22 (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff did not oppose the motion within the time for filing an opposition 23 or otherwise request additional time to respond. See Civ. Loc. Rule 7.1.e.2. HUD’s 24 motion is therefore granted as unopposed. See Civ. Loc. Rule 7.1.f.3.c; Ghazali v. 25 Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995). All claims asserted against Defendant HUD 26 are dismissed without prejudice. 27 // 28 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 ||Dated: July 8, 2024

4 Wy James seas 5 United States District Judge

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28