Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00308/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00308-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441ac Removal- Account Receivable

---

1

19cv308-MMA (RBB)

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

XGOLF ABILENE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

WORKWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv308-MMA (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. No. 4]

On December 6, 2018, Plaintiff XGolf Abilene filed this action against Defendant 

Workwell Technologies, Inc.1in the 42nd District Court of Taylor County, Texas. Doc. 

No. 1-1. Defendant removed the action to the Northern District of Texas on January 10, 

2019. Doc. No. 1. Defendant subsequently moved to transfer the case to this Court, or in 

the alternative moved to dismiss the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6). Doc. No. 4. Pursuant to the Northern District of Texas’s civil local rules, 

Plaintiff was required to file a response in opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss on 

or before February 7, 2019. See N.D. Tex. Civ. L.R. 7.1.d (stating that a response in 

 

1 Defendant contends it was errantly named as uAccept in the complaint. See Doc. No. 1 at 1. For 

consistency, and the purposes of this Order, the Court refers to this entity as Workwell Technologies, 

Inc. as the entity is currently reflected on the docket as such.

Case 3:19-cv-00308-MMA-RBB Document 11 Filed 08/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv308-MMA (RBB)

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

opposition to a motion “must be filed within 21 days from the date the motion is filed”). 

Plaintiff did not file an opposition and the Northern District of Texas transferred the case 

to this Court on February 11, 2019. Doc. No. 6. In a footnote, the court noted that “all 

dispositive motions should be addressed by the transferee Court.” Id. at 1 n.2. 

Accordingly, the case was transferred to this Court with a fully briefed motion to dismiss. 

See Docket.

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 [the 

relevant] Civil Local Rule[s], 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. 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 complaint without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is 

instructed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00308-MMA-RBB Document 11 Filed 08/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2