Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01512/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01512-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 The first cause of action is for wrongful demotion in violation of public policy; the

fifth cause of action is for employment discrimination – sexual harassment; the sixth cause of

action is for employment discrimination – harassment; and the tenth cause of action is for

negligent infliction of emotional distress.

11CV1512

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANELLE KIDD,

Plaintiff,

v.

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE

COMPANY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11cv1512 L(MDD)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS THE FIRST, FIFTH,

SIXTH AND TENTH CAUSES OF

ACTION FROM THE FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT [doc. #4]

Defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company’s moves to dismiss the first, fifth, sixth and

tenth causes of action from the first amended complaint.1

 The motion was set for hearing on

September 6, 2011. Under the Civil Local Rules, plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion

was due on or before August 29, 2011. See CIV. L.R. 7.1.e.2. But plaintiff has not opposed the

motion nor has she sought additional time in which to respond to the motion to dismiss.

Civil Local 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." When an opposing party receives notice under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b) and is given sufficient time to respond to a motion to dismiss, the

Case 3:11-cv-01512-L-MDD Document 7 Filed 09/20/11 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 11CV1512

Court may grant the motion based on failure to comply with a local rule. See generally Ghazali

v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for failure to file

timely opposition papers where plaintiff had notice of the motion and ample time to respond).

Here, plaintiff was properly served with defendants’ motion, which was filed on July 15,

2011, and therefore she had six weeks to oppose the motion. Because the motion to dismiss

certain causes of action is unopposed, and relying on Civil Local Rule 7.1(f.3.c), the Court

deems plaintiff’s failure to oppose defendants’ motion as consent to granting it.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED defendants’ motion to dismiss the first, fifth,

sixth and tenth causes of action from the first amended complaint is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall file an answer to the FAC within the

time provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 19, 2011

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. MITCHELL D. DEMBIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:11-cv-01512-L-MDD Document 7 Filed 09/20/11 Page 2 of 2