1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hnited States District Court Central District of California

11 | BERDGE JOLAKIAN, Case Ne 5:25-cv-01783-ODW (PDx) 12 Plaintiff, 13 y. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [13] OPERATING ENGINGEERS PENSION 15 | TRUST, 16 Defendant. 17 ig Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss □□□□□□□□□□

19 Complaint. (Mot. Dismiss (“Motion” or “Mot.”), ECF No. 13.) After carefully 50 considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the

matter appropriate for decision without oral argument and vacated the August 25, 2025 hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. Because Plaintiff has not

53 filed an opposition, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file

35 an opposition to any motion at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the date designated for hearing the motion. Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 provides that “[t]he failure to

file any required paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed

3g consent to the granting or denial of the motion.” See Ghazali v. Moran,

,

1 || 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (upholding district court’s dismissal of plaintiff's complaint based on plaintiffs failure to oppose motion as required by local rules). Prior to dismissing 3 | an action pursuant to a local rule, courts must weigh: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of cases, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk 5 || of prejudice to the defendants, (4) public policy favoring disposition of cases on the 6 || merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic measures. Jd. at 53 (quoting Henderson 7 | v. Duncan,

, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “Explicit findings with respect to 8 | these factors are not required.” Jsmail v. County of Orange, No. 8:10-cv-00901 VBF 9 || (ASW),

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012) (first citing Henderson, 10 || 779 F.2d at 1424; and then citing Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

, 129 11 | (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied,

(1988)). 12 The Court has considered the Ghazali factors and is persuaded that granting the 13 | Motion is appropriate. The hearing on Defendant’s Motion was set for August 25, 14 || 2025. Plaintiff's opposition was therefore due by August 4, 2025. As of the date of 15 || this Order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or any other filing that could be 16 || construed as a request for a continuance. Accordingly, the Court deems Plaintiffs failure to oppose as consent to granting the Motion to Dismiss, and therefore 18 | GRANTS the Motion. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 September 3, 2025 He 23 3 we 3 24 bie ies 5 OTIS D. IGHT, II 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28