1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAN PHAN, PhD, Case No.: 23-CV-75-W-BGS

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS [DOC. 13] WITH PREJUDICE 14 UNIVERSITY & STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On June 14, 2023, this Court granted Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss 19 with leave to amend. (See MTD Order [Doc. 12].) Plaintiff’s first amended complaint 20 was due by August 1, 2023. (Id. at 3:7–8.) Additionally, because Plaintiff’s counsel had 21 withdrawn from the case, Plaintiff was ordered to file her mailing address of record for 22 service of process by August 1, 2023. (Id. at 3:10–14.) Plaintiff failed to comply with the 23 MTD Order. 24 On February 8, 2024, Defendants filed the currently pending motion to dismiss this 25 case with prejudice. (See MTD [Doc. 13].) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or 26 otherwise requested additional time in which to respond to Defendants’ motion. 27 As an initial matter, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion based on Plaintiff’s 28 failure to oppose the motion. Civil Local Rule 7.1(f.3.c) expressly provides that “[i]f an 1 || opposing party fails to file papers in the manner required by Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), that 2 || failure may constitute a consent to the granting of that motion or other ruling by the 3 court.” The Ninth Circuit has held that pursuant to a local rule, a district court may 4 || properly grant a motion to dismiss for failure to respond. See generally Ghazali v. Moran,

, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for failure to file timely 6 || opposition papers where plaintiff had notice of the motion and ample time to respond). 7 || Thus, the Court construes Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ motion as consent 8 dismissal of the case with prejudice. 9 Additionally, a federal lawsuit must be prosecuted with “reasonable diligence” to 10 avoid dismissal. Anderson v. Air West, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1976). 11 || Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that “[i]f a plaintiff fails to 12 || prosecute or to comply with... a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the 13 || action....””> Consistent with Rule 41(b), the Local Rules of Practice for this District 14 || provide that “[a]ctions or proceedings which have been pending in this court for more 15 || than six months, without any proceeding or discovery having been taken therein during 16 period, may, after notice, be dismissed by the court for want of prosecution....” 17 ||Civ.L.R. 41.1. 18 Here, Plaintiff failed to comply with the MTD Order. Additionally, Plaintiff has 19 taken no steps to prosecute this case in over a year. (See MTD Order at 2:5—25.) For 20 || these additional reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion. 21 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion [Doc. 13] and 22 || DISMISSES the case WITH PREJUDICE. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ||Dated: April 22, 2024 \ 2 [pe Lon 26 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan 7 United States District Judge 28