Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01920/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01920-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12188 Americans With Disabilities Act - Civil Enforcement Actions

---

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

MICHELLE LEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTH COUNTY FAIR L.P. a 

Delaware limited partnership; et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-CV-01920-GPC-RBB

ORDER 

[ECF No. 107.]

Before the Court is Defendant North County Fair L.P.’s motion to dismiss 

the complaint brought by Plaintiff Michelle Lee. (ECF No. 107.) After the motion

was noticed for hearing for February 22, 2019, the Court issued a briefing schedule

requiring the Plaintiff, Michelle Lee to file her response/opposition brief by 

December 28, 2018. (See ECF No. 108.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed any 

opposition papers; as a consequence, North County Fair submitted a Notice of NonOpposition urging the Court to grant the motion for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 

109.) 

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 (or when otherwise scheduled by the Court). Civ. Local R. 7.1.e.2; 

Case 3:18-cv-01920-GPC-MSB Document 111 Filed 01/07/19 PageID.<pageID> 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

- 2 - CASE NO. 3:18-CV-01920-GPC-MSB

Turner v. Berryhill, No. 17CV1130-CAB-BGS, 2018 WL 501010, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 

Jan. 19, 2018). Failure to comply with the rule “may constitute a consent to the 

granting of a motion.” Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c. Local rules have the force of law, 

United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 574–75 (1958), and courts have discretion to 

dismiss cases for failure to comply with the local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 36 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 grant the

motion). Before dismissal, 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 on their merits; and (4) the availability of less drastic 

sanctions.’” Id. (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 

1986)).

The Court concludes that the majority of the factors weigh in favor of 

dismissal. There is no indication that Plaintiff was unaware of the impending 

deadline to file its responsive pleadings. Moreover, the Court finds 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” all weigh in favor of 

granting the motion to dismiss. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

In light of the above, it is hereby ORDERED that North County Mall’s

motion to dismiss (ECF No. 107) is GRANTED without prejudice; the hearing set 

for the matter on February 22, 2019 is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 4, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01920-GPC-MSB Document 111 Filed 01/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2