Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00554/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00554-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act (Definitions)

---

-1- 17CV554-MMA (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 

JEMY ATTALLAH, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 

CUSTOMS AND BORDER 

PROTECTION; IMMIGRATION AND 

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; and 

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF 

AMERICA, INC., 

Defendant.

Case No.: 17CV554-MMA (AGS)

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

[Doc. No. 7]

 Plaintiff Jemy Attallah filed this action against Defendants the United States of 

America, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and 

Corrections Corporation of America, Inc.1

 See Doc. No. 1. On June 29, 2017, Defendant 

Corrections Corporation of America, Inc. (“Defendant Corrections Corporation”) filed a 

motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

See Doc. No. 7. The Court set the motion for hearing on August 7, 2017, meaning that 

Plaintiff was required to file a response in opposition on or before July 24, 2017. See

Civ. LR 7.1(e)(2) (stating that “each party opposing a motion . . . must file that 

opposition or statement of non-opposition . . . not later than fourteen (14) calendar days 

                                                                

1

 Counsel contends that Defendant Corrections Corporation of America, Inc. is now “CoreCivic.” See

Doc. Nos. 7, 9. For consistency, and the purposes of this Order, the Court refers to this entity as 

Corrections Corporation of America, Inc. as the entity is currently reflected on the docket as such. 

Case 3:17-cv-00554-MMA-AGS Document 10 Filed 07/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
 -2- 17CV554-MMA (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

prior to the noticed hearing”). Plaintiff has not yet filed an opposition brief or a 

statement of non-opposition in response to Defendant Corrections Corporation’s motion 

to dismiss. As a result, Defendant requests the Court grant its unopposed motion to 

dismiss. See Doc. No. 9. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may grant an unopposed motion to 

dismiss where a local rule permits, but does not require, it to do so. See generally, 

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, Civil Local Rule 

7.1.f.3.c provides, “[i]f 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.” As such, the Court has the option of 

granting Defendant’s motion on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to oppose.2

 Generally, 

public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits. See Hernandez v. City of El

Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). However, a case cannot move forward toward 

resolution on the merits when the plaintiff fails to defend his or her complaint against a 

Rule 12 motion. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s unopposed motion to 

dismiss, and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims as to Defendant Corrections Corporation 

without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 31, 2017

 _____________________________ 

 Hon. Michael M. Anello 

United States District Judge 

                                                                

2

 Also, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the provisions of Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2 constitutes a failure 

to comply with the provisions of this Court’s Local Rules, which serves as an additional basis for 

dismissal under Civil Local Rule 41.1.b. 

Case 3:17-cv-00554-MMA-AGS Document 10 Filed 07/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2