O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

10

11 OCEAN WEST FOOD SERVICES, LLC Case № 2:24-cv-00142-ODW (Ex) et al., 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS [54] 14 QI QIANG HUANG et al., 15

Defendants. 16

17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff-Counterdefendants’ (“Plaintiffs”) Motion 20 to Dismiss Defendant-Counterclaimants’ (“Defendants”) first, second, third, and 21 fourth counterclaims. (Mot. Dismiss (“Motion” or “Mot.”), ECF No. 54.) After 22 carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court 23 deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument and vacated the 24 December 9, 2024 hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. Because 25 Defendants have not filed an opposition, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 26 II. DISCUSSION 27 Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file 28 an opposition to any motion at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the date designated 1 for hearing the motion. Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 provides that “[t]he failure to 2 file any required paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed 3 consent to the granting or denial of the motion.” See Ghazali v. Moran,

, 4 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (upholding district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint based 5 on plaintiff’s failure to oppose motion as required by local rules). Prior to dismissing 6 an action pursuant to a local rule, courts must weigh: (1) the public interest in 7 expeditious resolution of cases, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk 8 of prejudice to the defendants, (4) public policy favoring disposition of cases on the 9 merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic measures.

at 53 (quoting Henderson 10 v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986)). “Explicit findings with respect to 11 these factors are not required.” Ismail v. County of Orange, SACV 10-00901 VBF 12 (AJW),

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012) (first citing Henderson, 13

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

, 129 14 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied,

(1988)). In Ghazali, the Ninth Circuit 15 found these factors satisfied where the plaintiff received notice of the motion and had 16 ample opportunity to respond yet failed to do so. See

. 17 The Court has considered the Ghazali factors and is persuaded that granting 18 Plaintiffs’ Motion is appropriate. The hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion was set for 19 December 9, 2024. Defendants’ opposition was therefore due by November 18, 2024. 20 However, Defendants did not file an opposition. Instead, on December 3, 2024, 21 Defendants requested leave to file a Second Amended Counterclaim. (Req., ECF 22 No. 59). Plaintiffs opposed this request, (Opp’n Req., ECF No. 64), and the Court 23 denied it, (Min. Order, ECF No. 66). Regardless, Defendants’ filing is untimely, 24 whether construed as an opposing paper—deadline expired on November 18, 2024— 25 or a request to amend their pleading—deadline expired on July 29, 2024. (Scheduling 26 Order 25, ECF No. 36.) 27 As Defendants’ filing was untimely—both as an opposing paper and as a 28 request to file an amended pleading—the Court declines to consider it. See C.D. Cal. 1 || L.R. 7-12 (‘The Court may decline to consider any memorandum or other document not filed within the deadline set by order or local rule.”) The Court thus deems 3 || Defendants’ failure to oppose as consent to granting Plaintiffs’ Motion and dismisses 4] the first, second, third, and fourth counterclaims. 5 Il. CONCLUSION 6 For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to 7 || Dismiss. (ECF No. 54.) Defendants’ first, second, third, and fourth counterclaims are 8 | DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. as Pe we 7 12 December 11, 2024 Gé Vibe a 13 14 15 OTIS D. WRIGHT, I UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28