Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00157/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00157-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

17-CV-157 JLS (JLB)

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

JOSHUA ALAN BLOW,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-CV-157 JLS (JLB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

(ECF No. 25)

Presently before the Court is Defendant County of San Diego’s Motion to Dismiss 

First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 25). 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. 27.) Plaintiff Joshua Alan Blow, proceeding pro se, never filed an opposition to 

Defendant’s 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 

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

Case 3:17-cv-00157-JLS-JLB Document 28 Filed 07/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17-CV-157 JLS (JLB)

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 “[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 Defendant’s motion to dismiss despite having 

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

that Plaintiff was served with its motion. (See, e.g., ECF No. 25-2 (proof of service).) In 

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

18, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. (ECF No. 25.) 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 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25). See, e.g., id. (“Failure to follow 

a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”); id. at 54 (“Although we 

construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of 

procedure.”); Salarda v. Aegis Wholesale Corp., No. 12CV0700-WQH-BGS, 2012 WL 

3986441, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2012) (concluding same based on similar situation).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-00157-JLS-JLB Document 28 Filed 07/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17-CV-157 JLS (JLB)

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 reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

(ECF No. 25). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s 

First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24). Plaintiff SHALL FILE an amended complaint, 

if any, on or before fourteen (14) days of 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.

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2017

 

1

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-00157-JLS-JLB Document 28 Filed 07/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3