Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00142/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00142-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

18cv0142-GPC-KSC

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

CHRIS LANGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

YM HOLDINGS, LLC, a Kansas Limited 

Liability Company; et. al,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv0142-GPC-KSC

ORDER GRANTING AS 

UNOPPOSED:

(1) YM HOLDINGS, LLC’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS [DKT. NO. 10]

(2) DONG SOO LEE AND SUJIN 

LEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. 

NO. 11]

[DKT. NO. 86.]

On April 19, 2018, Defendant YM Holdings, LLC moved to dismiss each cause of 

action within Plaintiff Chris Langer’s Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 

Rule 12(b)(6) and failure to plead Article III standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Dkt. 

No. 10. That same day, Defendants Dong Soo Lee and Sujin Lee also moved to dismiss 

the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). Dkt. No. 11. The deadline for 

filing an opposition to either motion was May 11, 2018. Dkt. No. 12. To date, Plaintiff 

has not responded to these motions. 

Case 3:18-cv-00142-GPC-KSC Document 13 Filed 05/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv0142-GPC-KSC

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

Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c provides: “If an opposing party fails to file the papers in 

the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to 

the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” CivLR 7.1.f.3.c. 

While “[f]ailure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for 

dismissal,” courts must consider the following factors before dismissing a case on such a 

ground: “(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 o[n] their merits; and (5) the availability of less 

drastic sanctions.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted).

First, the Court finds the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation 

weighs in favor of dismissal, as Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants will be entirely 

resolved without further delay if the motions are granted. Second, the Court's need to 

manage its docket also weighs in favor of dismissal as Plaintiff has not made a single 

filing with this Court in the approximately four months since the action was filed. Dkt. 

No. 1. Third, the risk of prejudice to Defendants weighs against dismissal as there is no 

evidence that continuing with this case would prejudice Defendants. Fourth, the public 

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits weighs against dismissal; yet, 

Plaintiff's failure to respond to these motions indicates Plaintiff's disregard for disposing 

of the case on the merits. Finally, the Court is not imposing sanctions, but is instead

considering whether to grant unopposed motions. The Court does not believe that

dismissal with prejudice is warranted for the first instance of nonopposition. The lesser 

dismissal without prejudice suffices. Having considered the above factors, the Court finds 

they weigh in favor of granting these motions as unopposed. See Poet v. J.P. Morgan 

Case 3:18-cv-00142-GPC-KSC Document 13 Filed 05/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv0142-GPC-KSC

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

Chase Bank, No. 3:14-CV-2438-GPC-RBB, 2015 WL 11711828, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 

14, 2015). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant YM HOLDINGS, LLC Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as unopposed 

[Dkt. No. 10]

2. Defendants Dong Soo Lee and Sujin Lee’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as 

unopposed [Dkt. No. 11]

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; 

4. The hearing set for July 13, 2018 is VACATED

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 25, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00142-GPC-KSC Document 13 Filed 05/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3