Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01340/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01340-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

911 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

2711 

28 

ED 

12 JUL 26 PM 2: 0' 

T~:T ','U-' -, ~\ ~ 

f\;:o:rrv () ',. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERTA FOX MABLE, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

HARRAH'S RINCON CASINO & 

RESORT, and DOES 1 through 20, 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

HAYES, Judge: 

CASE NO. 12cvOl340 WQH BGS 

ORDER 

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint filed by specially 

appearing Defendant Harrah's Rincon Casino & Resort. (ECF No.3). 

I. Background 

On April 20, 2012, Plaintiff Roberta Fox Mable initiated this action by filing the 

Complaint in the Superior Court ofCali fomi a for the County of San Diego. (ECF No. 3-3). 

On June 5, 2012, Defendant, appearing specially, removed the action to this Court, alleging 

federal question j\lrisdiction. (ECF No.1). 

On June 12,2012, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss seeking the dismissal of all 

claims against Defendant in the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 

(b)(1), (2), (6) and (7). (ECF No.3). Defendant contends that: (1) this Court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute; (2) this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over 

Defendant; (3) the Rincon Tribe is an indispensable party which cannot be joined in the federal 

", ' , 

action; and (4) Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which reliefcan be'granted. (ECF No.3-I). 

The record indicates that Plaintiffhas not filed any opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. 

- 1 - 12cv01340 WQH BGS 

Case 3:12-cv-01340-WQH-BGS Document 6 Filed 07/26/12 Page 1 of 2
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

Discussion 

1 " II. 

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

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

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

II "Ifan opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, 

6 \I that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by 

7\1 the court." S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(a). "Although there is ... a [public] policy 

8 II favoring disposition on the merits, it is the responsibility ofthe moving party to move towards 

9 II that disposition at a reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics." In re 

\I Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1454 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirming grant ofmotion to dismiss for failure to 

1111 prosecute); see also Steel v. CityojSanDiego, No. 09cv1743. 2009 WL 3715257, at *1 (S.D. 

1211 Cal., Nov. 5, 2009) (dismissing action pursuant to local Rule 7.1 for plaintiffs failure to 

13 \I respond to a motion to dismiss). 

14 II The docket reflects that Plaintiff was served with the Notice ofRemoval and Motion 

/I to Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 1 at 6-8, 4). The hearing for the Motion to Dismiss was noticed for 

16 II July 16, 2012. Civil Local Rule 7.1 provides: "each party opposing a motion ... must file that 

17 " opposition ... with the clerk ... not later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the noticed 

18 II hearing." S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 7. 1 (e)(2). As ofthe date ofthis Order, Plaintiffhas failed 

19 II to file an opposition. The Court concludes that "the public's interest in expeditious resolution 

II of litigation," "the court's need to manage its docket," and "the risk of prejudice to the 

21 II defendants" weigh in favor ofgranting the Motion to Dismiss for failure to file an opposition. 

22 II Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

23 III. Conclusion 

24 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by specially appearing 

II Defendant Harrah's Rincon Casino & Resort is GRANTED. (ECF No.3). The Complaint is 

2611 DISMISSED WithO~judice. 

2711 DATED: 7Ac 2...­

28 WILLIAMQ. 

United States Dis 

-2- 12cv01340 WQH BGS 

Case 3:12-cv-01340-WQH-BGS Document 6 Filed 07/26/12 Page 2 of 2