Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02054/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02054-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1332jd Diversity-Declaratory Judgement

---

1

3.19-cv-02054-W-BLM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES PYUNG LEE and HEE SOOK 

NAM,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VERIMATRIX, INC., ROBIN “ROSS” 

COOPER, and, INSIDE SECURE,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3.19-cv-02054-W-BLM

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

ROBIN “ROSS” COOPER AND 

VERIMATRIX’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT [Doc. 41]

Pending before the Court is Defendant Robin “Ross” Cooper’s (“Cooper”) motion 

to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

[Doc. 41]. This motion was joined by Defendant Verimatrix, Inc. [Doc. 42]. The Court 

decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 

7.1(d)(1). To date, Plaintiffs have neither opposed Defendants’ motion, nor requested 

additional time to do so. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion to 

dismiss.

The Ninth Circuit has held that pursuant to a local rule, a district court may properly 

grant a motion to dismiss for failure to respond. See generally Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 

52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for failure to file timely 

opposition papers where plaintiff had notice of the moton and ample time to respond). 

Case 3:19-cv-02054-W-DEB Document 44 Filed 02/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3.19-cv-02054-W-BLM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Civil Local Rule 7.1(f.3.c) provides that “[i]f an opposing party fails to file papers in the 

manner required by Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), that failure may constitute a consent to the 

granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” 

Here, the Plaintiffs did not file an opposition and have not requested additional 

time in which to do so. Additionally, Plaintiffs provide no evidence that the Defandants’

moving papers failed to reach the mailing address designated in Defendants’ proof of 

service or that Plaintiffs were not aware of this motion. Relying on Civil Local Rule 7.1 

(f.3.c), the Court deems Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose Defendants’ motion as consent to its 

merits, and accordingly will grant the motion on that basis. 

For the forgoing reasons, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss for 

failure to state a claim with leave to amend [Doc. 41]. Should Plaintiffs choose to file an 

Amended Complaint, they must do so on or before March 9, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-02054-W-DEB Document 44 Filed 02/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2