1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL URIARTE-LIMON, Case No.: 3:24-cv-00559-JAH-DTF

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS

14 CHULA VISTA CAR AUDIO INC., a [ECF No. 8] California corporation; GALE GERALD 15 FICK, as an individual and trustee of the 16 KOBE ENTERPRISES TRUST 12-22-22; and DOES 1 through 10, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, 20 which brings causes of action under the ADA and California’s Unruh Act, for lack of 21 subject matter jurisdiction. See ECF No. 8-1 (“Motion” or Mot.”). 22 BACKGROUND 23 Defendants filed the instant Motion on May 9, 2025. Mot. at 1. In their Motion, 24 Defendants claim Plaintiff’s ADA claims are moot because Defendants have already 25 completed remedial measures to cure Plaintiff’s alleged violations. Mot. at 12. 26 Furthermore, Defendants ask the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 27 Unruh claims because Plaintiff is a “high frequency litigant”—as defined by California 28 law—and would be subject to California’s heightened pleading standards in state court. Id. 1 at 15-17. Defendants’ Motion is set for oral argument before this Court on June 25, 2025, 2 at 2:30 p.m. However, as of June 23, 2025, Plaintiff has failed to submit any responsive 3 briefing. 4 DISCUSSION 5 In the Southern District of California, failure to file an opposition no later than 6 fourteen calendar days prior to the noticed hearing “may constitute a consent to the granting 7 of a motion[.]” CivLR 7.1.f.3.c; see also Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) 8 (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for failure to timely file opposition papers). Prior to 9 granting an unopposed motion for dismissal, the Court must weigh the following factors: 10 “(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to 11 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 12 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” 13 Ghazali,

(quoting Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1423 (9th Cir. 14 1986)). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the first and fourth factors cut in opposite 15 directions. See Yourish v. California Amplifier,

, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (first 16 factor always weighs in favor of dismissal); Hernandez v. City of El Monte,

, 17 401 (9th Cir. 1998) (fourth factor counsels against dismissal). 18 After a review of the record, the Court finds the second and third factors weigh in 19 favor of dismissal. Plaintiff failed to comply with one of the most basic requirements of 20 litigation and to date has offered no excuse for failing to respond to Defendants’ Motion. 21 The fact that Plaintiff has yet to make any attempt to address the motion also supports a 22 finding of prejudice towards defendants and weights in favor of dismissal. Finally, with 23 respect to whether less drastic measures have been considered, in the interest of lessening 24 the sanction imposed on Plaintiff, the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice. 25 Thus, the Court finds the factors weigh heavily in favor of dismissal. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED, and 3 || Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the 4 ||hearing set for June 25, 2025, is VACATED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 DATED: June 24, 2025 7 JOHN A. HOUSTON 8 / UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28