Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02345/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02345-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1693 Electronic Funds Transfer 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

IAN COLLINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MISSION GORGE LIQUOR, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 11-cv-2345-L(DHB)

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

[DOC. 43]

On December 10, 2012, the Clerk of the Court entered default against Defendants

Mission Gorge Liquor and Waleed Toma. (Doc. 40.) Defendants now move to set aside the

entry of default. To date, Plaintiff Ian Collins has not opposed Defendants’ motion. 1

Civil Local Rule 7.1(f.3.c) provides that “[i]f an opposing party fails to file papers in the

manner required by Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of

that motion or other ruling by the court.” The Ninth Circuit has even held that a district court

may properly grant a motion to dismiss for failure to respond. See generally Ghazali v. Moran,

 Defendants’ motion is sometimes ambiguous as to which entry of default they are 1

requesting be set aside. At times, the motion refers to Defendants plurally, but other times—for

example, in the conclusion—the motion refers to Defendant singularly. The Court will

nonetheless interpret this request to apply to both Mission Gorge Liquor and Waleed Toma.

11cv2345

Case 3:11-cv-02345-L-DHB Document 45 Filed 02/14/13 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

46 F.3d 52, 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for failure to file timely

opposition papers where plaintiff had notice of the motion and ample time to respond).

In this case, based on the February 25, 2013 hearing date, Plaintiff’s opposition was due

by February 11, 2013. However, Plaintiff did not file an opposition and has not requested

additional time to do so. Moreover, there is no evidence before the Court that Defendants’

moving papers failed to reach the mailing address designated in the Proof of Service or that

Plaintiff was not aware of the pending motion. Therefore, relying on Civil Local Rule 7.1(f.3.c),

the Court deems Plaintiff’s failure to oppose Defendants’ motion as consent to granting it.

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to set aside the entry of

default. (Doc. 43.) Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by February

28, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 14, 2013

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. DAVID H. BARTICK

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

11cv2345

2

Case 3:11-cv-02345-L-DHB Document 45 Filed 02/14/13 Page 2 of 2