Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02705/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02705-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 740
Nature of Suit: Railway Labor Act
Cause of Action: 45:0151 Railway Labor Act (Definitions)

---

1

18cv2705-CAB-JLB

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

ELLA MARIE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

MACHINISTS,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv2705-CAB-JLB

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO 

DISMISS SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT [Doc. No. 10]

On March 11, 2019, defendant International Association of Machinists and 

Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. 

[Doc. No. 10.] One month has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2. requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing. Failure 

to comply with these rules “may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion.” Civ. 

Local R. 7.1.f.3.c. District courts have broad discretion to enact and apply local rules, 

including dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 

46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (affirming grant of an unopposed motion to dismiss under 

local rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to oppose as consent to granting the 

motion). Before dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, the district 

Case 3:18-cv-02705-CAB-JLB Document 12 Filed 04/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv2705-CAB-JLB

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 “weigh[s] several factors: ‘(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 of 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)). That plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this 

action does not excuse her failure to follow the rules of procedure that govern other 

litigants. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow 

the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”). 

Here, defendant attached a proof of service to its motion, signaling that Plaintiff 

was served at the address provided on the face of her complaint. [Doc. No. 10-1 at 5.] 

Moreover, Plaintiff was provided adequate time to prepare a response.1 The Court 

scheduled a hearing for April 18, 2019, resulting in a response deadline for Plaintiff of 

April 4, 2019. As of April 11, 2019, plaintiff had not filed an opposition to the motion. 

Thus, the Court finds that “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation,” 

“the court’s need to manage its docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to the defendant” all 

weigh in favor of granting the motion to dismiss. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

Accordingly, the majority of the Ghazali factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant’s motion to 

dismiss [Doc. No. 10] is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the second amended 

complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2019

 

1 The Court notes that Plaintiff did timely file an opposition to the motion to dismiss the first amended 

complaint [see Doc. Nos. 2, 5, 6], thus indicating that Plaintiff is aware of the due dates for oppositions.

Case 3:18-cv-02705-CAB-JLB Document 12 Filed 04/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2