Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00500/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00500-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1355 Petition for Return of Property

---

1

17-CV-500 JLS (WVG)

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS 5904 

AND 5908 GRASSHOPPER ROAD, 

BIRCHWOOD, TENNESSEE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-CV-500 JLS (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

(ECF No. 16)

Presently before the Court is Defendants Jimmy Collins’s, Ashley Collins’s, and 

Collins Family Farms’ Joint Motion to Dismiss the Government’s Complaint for Forfeiture 

(“MTD”). (ECF No. 16). The Court vacated the hearing on the motion and took it under 

submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). (ECF No. 18.) 

Plaintiff United States of America never filed an opposition to Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss.

Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2) states that “each party opposing a motion . . . must file 

that opposition . . . with the clerk and serve the movant or the movant’s attorney not later 

than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the noticed hearing.” (Emphasis in original.) As 

a corollary, Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c), entitled “Waiver,” states that “[i]f an opposing 

party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure 

Case 3:17-cv-00500-JLS-WVG Document 19 Filed 08/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17-CV-500 JLS (WVG)

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

may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion . . . .” Further, case law establishes 

that “[b]efore dismissing the action, the district court is required to weigh 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 v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff did not file any opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss despite having 

an opportunity to do so. Indeed, Defendants’ motion contains a proof of service indicating 

that Plaintiff was served with their motion. (See, e.g., ECF No. 16, at 31(proof of service).) 

In addition, the Motion to Dismiss reflects that the hearing on the motion was noticed for 

July 20, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. (Id. at 1.) And there is no other indication that Plaintiff was 

otherwise unable to respond. 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 defendant” weigh in favor of granting the Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that 

Plaintiff has failed to file any opposition. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. Accordingly, given 

Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition in compliance with the local rules, the Court 

GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16). See, e.g., id. (“Failure to follow 

a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

 

1 Pin citations to docketed material refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each 

page.

Case 3:17-cv-00500-JLS-WVG Document 19 Filed 08/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17-CV-500 JLS (WVG)

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

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

(ECF No. 16). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s 

Complaint (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff SHALL FILE an amended complaint, if any, on or 

before fourteen days from the date on which this Order is electronically docketed. Failure 

to file an amended complaint by this date may result in this case being dismissed with 

prejudice.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2017

 

2

In addition, the Court notes that a future failure to oppose a motion to dismiss may result in a dismissal 

of the complaint with prejudice. 

Case 3:17-cv-00500-JLS-WVG Document 19 Filed 08/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3