Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01762/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01762-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

1

19-CV-01762 W (WVG)

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

JESSE RAYMOND,

Plaintiff,

v.

FCA US LLC, et. al,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-CV-01762 W (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS

[DOC. 3]

Pending before the Court is Defendant FCA US LLC’s motion to dismiss Count III 

of the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Mot. [Doc. 3].) 

Plaintiff has failed to oppose. The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and 

without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons that follow, the Court 

GRANTS the motion [Doc. 3]. 

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.” The Ninth Circuit has held 

that a district court may properly grant a motion to dismiss for failure to respond. See 

Case 3:19-cv-01762-W-WVG Document 4 Filed 11/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19-CV-01762 W (WVG)

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

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, based on the October 28, 2019 hearing date for Defendant’s motion, 

Plaintiff’s opposition was due no later than October 11, 2019. However, Plaintiff did not 

file any opposition and has not requested additional time to do so. Moreover, there is no 

evidence before the Court that Defendant’s moving papers failed to reach the mailing 

address designated in the “Notice of Electronic Filing” (NEF) or that Plaintiff was not 

aware of the pending motion. Therefore, relying on Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c), the 

Court deems Plaintiff’s failure to oppose Defendant’s motion as consent to granting it.

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and 

DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s third cause of action for violation of 

Business & Professions Code sections 17531 and 17535. [Doc. 3.] Because Plaintiff’s 

other causes of action remain, the Clerk of the Court shall not close this case.

Plaintiff is admonished that a second failure to oppose a noticed motion to dismiss 

will result in a dismissal without leave to amend on the ground of prejudice resulting 

from delay and needless expense.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2019

States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-01762-W-WVG Document 4 Filed 11/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2