Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03080/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03080-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

ANTHONY AND KRISTI

FREDIANELLI,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv3080-GPC-WMC

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED

MOTION TO DISMISS

[ECF No. 6]

vs.

SEBASTIAN MARTINEZ,

Defendant.

On March 14, 2013, Defendant Sebastian Martinez filed a motion to dismiss

Plaintiffs’ complaint. (ECF No. 6.) The Court provided the hearing date of June 14,

2013. To date, Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition. 

Civil LocalRule 7.1.e.2. requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition

or statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing.

Failure to comply with these rules “may constitute a consent to the granting of a

motion.” Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c. District courts have broad discretion to enact and

apply local rules, including dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local

rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an

unopposed motion to dismiss under local rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to

oppose as consent to granting the motion); United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474

(9th Cir. 1979). Even though the court has an obligation to liberally construe their

pleadings, “pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at

- 1 - 12cv3080-GPC-WMC

Case 3:12-cv-03080-GPC-WMC Document 7 Filed 06/06/13 Page 1 of 2
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

54. Before dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, the district court

“weigh[s] several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the

defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5)

the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson

v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986)).

Here, the Court concludes that “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

litigation,” “the court’s need to manage its docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to the

defendants” weigh in favor of granting the Motion to Dismiss based on Plaintiff’s

failure to file an opposition. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. The majority of these factors

weigh in favor of dismissal. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with Civil Local

Rule 7.1.f.3.c, the Court finds good cause to grant Defendant’s unopposed motion to

dismiss. TheCourt’s docketreflects that Plaintiff wasserved with a copy ofthe motion. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss as unopposed.

See Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c; see also Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Holt v. I.R.S., 231 Fed.

Appx. 557, 558 (9th Cir. 2007) (court did not abused its discretion in dismissing action

for failure to file an opposition and rejecting pro se plaintiff's contention that the

district court should have warned her of the consequences of failing to file an

opposition). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,

currently set for June 14, 2013 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 6, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv3080-GPC-WMC

Case 3:12-cv-03080-GPC-WMC Document 7 Filed 06/06/13 Page 2 of 2