Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00264/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00264-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:2674 Federal Tort Claims Act - Liability of US

---

1

18-CV-264 JLS (AGS)

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

JUAN G. REYNOSO,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-264 JLS (AGS)

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO DISMISS

(ECF No. 3)

Presently before the Court is Defendant United States of America’s Motion to 

Dismiss, (ECF No. 3). No opposition to the Motion has been filed.

The Ninth Circuit has held that pursuant to a local rule a district court may properly 

grant a motion to dismiss for failure to respond. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th 

Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for failure to file timely opposition papers where plaintiff 

had notice of the motion and ample time to respond). Here, a local rule allows the Court 

to grant the Motion: Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c. provides “[i]f an opposing party fails to file 

[an opposition] 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.” 

An opposition must be filed fourteen (14) days prior to the noticed hearing. Civ. L. R. 

7.1.e.2. The hearing for the present Motion was set for March 22, 2018 at 1:30 p.m., thus 

any opposition was due by March 8, 2018.

In determining whether to dismiss an action, a district court is required to weigh 

several factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 

Case 3:18-cv-00264-JLS-AGS Document 9 Filed 04/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-CV-264 JLS (AGS)

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

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 (5) the availability of less drastic 

sanctions.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 

(9th Cir. 1986)). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the first and fourth factors cut in 

opposite directions. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (first 

factor always weighs in favor of dismissal); Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 

401 (9th Cir. 1998) (fourth factor always weighs against dismissal). Therefore, the Court 

considers the substance of factors two, three, and five.

Here, the second factor weighs in favor of dismissal. The Court must manage its 

docket to ensure the efficient provision of justice. This case was timely removed from state 

court on February 5, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has not appeared before this Court and

failed to file a timely opposition. See also Holt v. I.R.S., 231 Fed. App’x. 557, 558 (9th 

Cir. 2007) (holding court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing action for failure to file 

an opposition and rejecting plaintiff’s contention that the district court should have warned 

her of the consequences of failing to file an opposition).

As to the third factor, the Court finds no risk of prejudice to Defendant if the Court

dismisses this matter. In fact, Defendant moved for dismissal. This factor weighs in favor 

of dismissing the action. As for the fifth factor, where a plaintiff does not oppose dismissal 

it is “unnecessary for the Court to consider less drastic alternatives.” Rodriguez v. 

Nationstar Mortg. LLC, No. 2:16–CV–5962–ODW(SK), 2016 WL 4581402, at *1 (C.D. 

Cal. Sept. 1, 2016). Still, the Court did employ the less drastic alternative of giving notice

to the parties that no opposition had been filed. On March 16, 2018, the Court filed an 

Order vacating the hearing on the Motion and taking the matter under submission. (ECF 

No. 5.) The Clerk of Court’s office mailed a copy of the Order to Plaintiff’s mailing 

address and it was returned undeliverable. (ECF No. 7.) The Court also issued an Order 

requesting Plaintiff’s Opposition brief and reminding Plaintiff of his obligation to provide 

a valid mailing address. (ECF No. 6.) The Court gave Plaintiff until April 10, 2018 to 

respond and he has not appeared before the Court.

Case 3:18-cv-00264-JLS-AGS Document 9 Filed 04/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-CV-264 JLS (AGS)

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

Finding that the Ghazali factors weigh in favor of granting Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss as unopposed, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion, (ECF No. 3). 

Additionally, Defendant United States of America has stated that Plaintiff has not filed an 

administrative claim with the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, pursuant to the Federal Tort 

Claim Act, and therefore Plaintiff’s case should be dismissed with prejudice so that he may 

file an administrative claim. (ECF No. 3, at 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); and Burns v. 

United States, 764 F.2d 722, 724 (9th Cir. 1985); and Warren v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior 

Bureau of Land Mgmt., 724 F.2d 776, 780 (9th Cir. 1984); and Declaration of Eric LaZare, 

ECF No. 3-2, ¶¶ 2–4).) The Court agrees. Plaintiff was required to file an administrative 

claim prior to bringing this lawsuit and therefore this Court is without jurisdiction to hear 

his claim unless and until he files with the appropriate agency. Accordingly, the Court

DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant United States of 

America. The Clerk SHALL close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00264-JLS-AGS Document 9 Filed 04/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3