O 1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

10

11 JOHN MICHAEL SCHAEFER, Case № 2:25-cv-00650-ODW (Ex)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS [31] 14 THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY et al.,

15 Defendants.

16 17 Presently before the Court is Defendant The Walt Disney Company’s Motion to 18 Dismiss Plaintiff John Michael Schaefer’s Complaint in its entirety. (Mot. Dismiss 19 (“Motion” or “Mot.”), ECF No. 31.) After carefully considering the papers filed in 20 connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision 21 without oral argument and vacated the May 12, 2025 hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); 22 C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. For the following reasons, 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 1 || on plaintiffs failure to oppose motion as required by local rules). Prior to dismissing 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’s Motion was set for May 12, 2025. 13 | Plaintiff's opposition was therefore due by April 21, 2025. On May 5, 2025, Plaintiff 14] filed an untimely opposition which does not substantively address Defendants’ 15 || arguments. (See Opp’n, ECF No. 35.) Accordingly, the Court declines to consider 16 | Plaintiff's untimely opposition. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12. The Court deems □□□□□□□□□□ 17 || failure to oppose as consent to granting the Motion to Dismiss, and _ therefore GRANTS the Motion. (ECF No.31.) 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 SS “Sei, eg 24 May 13, 2025 Géediot 25 □□ 26 7 OTIS D. WRIGHT, I 08 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE