Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00814/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00814-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Breach of Contract

---

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

- 1 - 11cv814

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS A. MOORE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11 CV 0814 MMA (WMC)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED

MOTION TO DISMISS 

[Doc. No. 7]

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

On April 18, 2011, the United States of America removed pro se Plaintiff Thomas Moore’s

small claims complaint (also referred to as “Plaintiff’s Claim and ORDER to Go to Small Claims

Court”) originally filed in the San Diego Superior Court, to this Court. [Doc. No. 1.] In his

complaint, Plaintiff seeks damages for pain and suffering he allegedly endured when Abigail

Kennedy purportedly disclosed Plaintiff’s medical records to others without his permission. [Doc.

No. 1-1.] Plaintiff further alleges personal injury as a result of his pre-marriage counseling with

Kennedy because she lacked the qualifications to treat Plaintiff and caused his relationship to end. 

[Id.] 

On April 19, 2011, the Court ordered the United States of America be substituted as the

named defendant, in place and stead of individual defendant Abigail Kennedy. [Doc. No. 5.] A

copy of the order was sent to Plaintiff at the “220 West C Street” address provided in his

complaint, but the mail was returned as undeliverable. [Doc. No. 6.]

Case 3:11-cv-00814-MMA-WMC Document 10 Filed 06/20/11 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 - 11cv814

On May 9, 2011, Defendant United States moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint on the

grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and the United States is

immune from liability for defamation claims. [Doc. No. 7-1.] Defendant served Plaintiff with

notice of the removal and its motion to dismiss on May 9, 2011, at 1037 4th Avenue, Room 606,

San Diego, California 92101. [Doc. Nos. 6, 8.] Defendant’s motion was set for hearing on June

21, 2011. Plaintiff did not file an opposition, which would have been due on June 7, 2011. See

Civ. L.R. 7.1(e)(2). On June 17, 2011, the Court in its discretion determined the matter suitable

for a decision on the papers and without oral argument, and took the matter under submission

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). 

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

dismiss pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a

motion for failure to respond. See generally, Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Local Civil 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.” As such, the Court has the option of granting Defendant’s

motion on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to respond, and it chooses to do so. 

Generally, public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits. See, e.g., Hernandez v.

City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). However, a case cannot move forward

toward resolution on the merits when the plaintiff fails to defend his case against a motion to

dismiss. Thus, this policy lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case

toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes or completely prevents progress in

that direction. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1454 (9th Cir. 1994). In addition, management of

this Court’s docket is of vital significance to the proper and timely resolution of matters before it.

Consequently, the Court finds dismissal pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) serves to

facilitate the management of its docket in light of the fact that the complaint fails to allege Plaintiff

exhausted his administrative remedies, and appears to state a claim for defamation that is

potentially barred on immunity grounds. 

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00814-MMA-WMC Document 10 Filed 06/20/11 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - 11cv814

Defendant seeks dismissal of the complaint without leave to amend on the ground that

amendment would be futile. However, the Court finds final dismissal at this time is premature. 

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss and

DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

that the Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff at 1037 4th Avenue, Room 606,

San Diego, California 92101, and update the docket to reflect this new address for Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 20, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00814-MMA-WMC Document 10 Filed 06/20/11 Page 3 of 3