Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01962/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01962-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

MEL M. MARIN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv1962-GPC-BGS

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS;

(2) DENYING AS MOOT

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR

JUDICIAL NOTICE;

(3) VACATING HEARING DATE 

[Dkt. No. 33.]

v.

COMERICA INCORPORATED, ET

AL.,

Defendants.

On November 24, 2014, Defendants Comerica Incorporated, Ralph Babb, Jr.,

and Frank Peraino (“Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Mel M. Marin’s

(“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint, as well as a supporting Request for Judicial

Notice. (Dkt. No. 33.) The Court set a briefing schedule requiring Plaintiff to file a

response by December 22, 2014. (Dkt. No. 35.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an

opposition. 

Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2. requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition

or statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing.

Failure to comply with these rules “may constitute a consent to the granting of a

motion.” Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c. District courts have broad discretion to enact and

apply local rules, including dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local

- 1 -

Case 3:14-cv-01962-GPC-BGS Document 38 Filed 01/09/15 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

rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an

unopposed motion to dismiss under local rule by deeming a pro se litigant's failure to

oppose as consent to granting the motion); United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474

(9th Cir. 1979). Before dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, the

district court “weigh[s] 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, 46 F.3d at 53

(quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Here, 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

defendants” weigh in favor of granting the Motion to Dismiss based on Plaintiff’s

failure to file an opposition. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. The majority of these factors

weigh in favor of dismissal.

Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c, the Court

finds good cause to grant Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Dismiss. The Court’s

docket reflects that Plaintiff was served with a copy of the motion and the Court’s

briefing schedule. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

as unopposed. See Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c; see also Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. In addition,

the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice, without

prejudice to any later re-filing. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss, currently set for January 16, 2015 at 1:30 p.m., is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 9, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:14-cv-01962-GPC-BGS Document 38 Filed 01/09/15 Page 2 of 2