Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02615/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02615-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

DIANNE LOGGINS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv2615-WQHBLM

vs. ORDER

COUNTY of SAN DIEGO HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY;

CHILD WELFARE SERVICES; Does

1-50, inclusive, 

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant County

of San Diego (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 7).

BACKGROUND

On October 28, 2013, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint alleging

civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and civil rights and tort violations under

state law. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges Defendant engaged in “discriminatory

practices [when] ... [Defendant] refused to cooperate with [Plaintiff], resulting in

unjustifiable disparate treatment. [Plaintiff] was denied equal access and equal treatment

because of her race and age.” Id. ¶ 7.

On December 4, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 7). The docket reflects

- 1 - 11cv2615-WQH-BLM

Case 3:13-cv-02615-WQH-BLM Document 8 Filed 03/18/14 Page 1 of 3
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

that Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

DISCUSSION

A district court may properly grant an unopposed motion pursuant to a local rule

where the local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a motion for failure

to respond. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Civil Local Rule 7.1

provides: “If an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil

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.” S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). 

“Although there is ... a [public] policy favoring disposition on the merits, it is the

responsibility of the moving party to move towards that disposition at a reasonable

pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics.” In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1454

(9th Cir. 1994) (affirming grant of motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute); see also

Steel v. City of San Diego, No. 09cv1743, 2009 WL 3715257, at *1 (S.D. Cal., Nov. 5,

2009) (dismissing action pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 for plaintiff’s failure to respond to

a motion to dismiss).

The docket reflects that Plaintiff was served with the Motion to Dismiss by

electronic filing as to Monica L. Montgomery at the Law Offices of Monica L.

Montgomery, 121 Broadway, Ste. 553, San Diego, CA 92101. (See ECF No. 7-1). The

Motion to Dismiss and the Court’s docket reflect that a hearing on the Motion to

Dismiss was noticed for February 3, 2014. (See ECF No. 7-2). Civil Local Rule 7.1

provides: “each party opposing a motion ... must file that opposition ... with the clerk

... not later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the noticed hearing.” S.D. Cal.

Civ. Local Rule 7.1(e)(2). The docket reflects that Plaintiff has failed to file an

opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. 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 filed by Defendants for failure to file an opposition. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

- 2 - 11cv2615-WQH-BLM

Case 3:13-cv-02615-WQH-BLM Document 8 Filed 03/18/14 Page 2 of 3
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

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant (ECF

No. 7) is GRANTED as follows: the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

DATED: March 18, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cv2615-WQH-BLM

Case 3:13-cv-02615-WQH-BLM Document 8 Filed 03/18/14 Page 3 of 3