Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01077/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01077-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

-1- 16cv1077-MMA (AGS)

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 

ANIMAL PROTECTION AND RESCUE 

LEAGUE, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv1077-MMA (AGS)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS

 [Doc. No. 28]

Plaintiff Animal Protection and Rescue League (“Plaintiff”) commenced this 

action against Defendant City of San Diego (“Defendant”) on May 4, 2016. See Doc. 

No. 1. On February 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for voluntary dismissal without 

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).1

 See Doc. No. 28. The 

Court set the motion for hearing on March 18, 2019, meaning Defendant was required to 

file a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion on or before March 4, 2019. See CivLR 

7.1.e.2 (stating that “each party opposing a motion . . . must file that opposition or 

statement of non-opposition . . . not later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the 

                                               

1

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides in pertinent part that “an action may be 

dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). 

Case 3:16-cv-01077-MMA-AGS Document 32 Filed 03/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
 -2- 16cv1077-MMA (AGS)

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

noticed hearing.”) (emphasis in original). Defendant is represented by counsel and was 

properly served with Plaintiff’s motion. To date, Defendant has not filed an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may grant an unopposed motion to 

dismiss where a local rule permits, but does not require, it to do so. See Ghazali v. 

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c provides, “[i]f 

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.” As such, the Court has the option of granting Plaintiff’s motion 

to dismiss based on Defendant’s failure to oppose, and it chooses to do so. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to dismiss and 

DISMISSES this action without prejudice. See Albergo v. Immunosyn Corp., No. 

9cv2653-DMS (MDD), 2012 WL 12953731, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 25, 2012) (granting the 

plaintiff’s motion for partial dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) as unopposed). The 

Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 15, 2019

 _____________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-01077-MMA-AGS Document 32 Filed 03/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2