Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01872/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01872-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

16cv1872-CAB-BLM

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

DARREN CHAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEESA FAZAL, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: 16cv1872-CAB-BLM

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

[Doc. Nos. 39, 41, 48]

On June 8, 2017, Defendants Alexander Perez and Mary D. Scarff filed a motion to 

dismiss with a noticed hearing date of July 17, 2017. [Doc. No. 41.] On June 9, 2017, 

Defendant Adam Laxat, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of 

Nevada, filed a motion to dismiss that omitted to set a hearing date. [Doc. No. 39.] 

On July 5, 2017, the Court vacated the dates related to the motions and issued a 

briefing schedule in order to counterbalance any confusion Plaintiff may have had as to 

when his responses in opposition were due. [Doc. No. 43.] Plaintiff was given up to and 

including July 19, 2017, to file his oppositions to the pending motions to dismiss. Plaintiff 

was also cautioned that his failure to file a timely opposition would result in the granting 

of the motions to dismiss.

Subsequently, Defendants filed motions that seemingly disregarded the Court’s July 

5, 2017 Order. On July 6, 2017, Defendant Adam Laxalt filed an amended motion to 

Case 3:16-cv-01872-CAB-BLM Document 50 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16cv1872-CAB-BLM

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

dismiss with a noticed hearing date of August 9, 2017. [Doc. No. 48.] The motion sets 

forth identical arguments as those posed in the June 9, 2017 motion.1 On July 14, 2017, a 

Notice of Non-Opposition to Motion By Defendants Alexander Perez and Mary D. Scarff, 

to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2)-(3), 

(b)(5)-(6) was prematurely filed [Doc. No. 49]. 

Regardless, the Court imposed deadline for Plaintiff to file an opposition has come 

and gone, and as of the date of this order Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to either 

motion. Failure to comply with the local rules setting a deadline to oppose a motion “may 

constitute a consent to the granting of a motion.” CivLR 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 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). That Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in 

this action does not excuse his failure to follow the rules of procedure that govern other 

litigants. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow 

the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”).

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS both Defendants Alexander Perez and Mary D. 

Scarff’s motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 41] and Defendant Adam Paul Laxalt’s motion to 

dismiss [Doc. No. 39]. 

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, no later than August 17, 2017. Plaintiff 

must identify all claims he asserts against defendants and clearly set forth the necessary 

factual allegations to support the elements of each claim. Plaintiff’s amended complaint 

must be a stand-alone document, “complete in itself without reference to the superseded 

 

1

In light of the Court’s briefing schedule regarding the original motion to dismiss filed by Defendant 

Laxalt and the identical nature of the motions, the Court deems the amended motion to dismiss [Doc. 

No. 48] WITHDRAWN AS MOOT.

Case 3:16-cv-01872-CAB-BLM Document 50 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16cv1872-CAB-BLM

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

[complaint].” CivLR 15.1(a).2 If no amended complaint is filed by this deadline, the case 

shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without further Court Order.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2017

 

2

See also Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010) (“As a general rule, when a plaintiff 

files an amended complaint, the amended complaint supercedes the original, the latter being treated 

thereafter as non-existent.”) 

Case 3:16-cv-01872-CAB-BLM Document 50 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3