Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01654/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01654-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983vp Violation of Due Process and Equal Protection

---

1

17cv1654-MMA (JMA)

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

EDWIN ALLEN GROOVER and 

CHERYL ANN WOOMER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHP OFFICER J. CALDERA, CHP 

OFFICER B. MONTGOMERY, and 

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17cv1654-MMA (JMA)

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

[Doc. Nos. 3, 4]

Plaintiffs Edwin Allen Groover and Cheryl Ann Woomer (collectively, 

“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants CHP Officer J. Caldera, CHP Officer B. 

Montgomery, and the County of San Diego (collectively, “Defendants”). See Doc. No. 1. 

On September 21, 2017, Defendants Caldera and Montgomery filed a motion to dismiss 

Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 41(b). See 

Doc. No. 3. On that same date, Defendant County of San Diego filed a motion to dismiss 

Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Doc. No. 

4. The Court set the motions for hearing on October 23, 2017, meaning that Plaintiffs 

were required to file a response in opposition to both motions on or before October 9, 

2017. See Civ. L.R. 7.1.e.2 (stating that “each party opposing a motion . . . must file that 

Case 3:17-cv-01654-MMA-JMA Document 8 Filed 11/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv1654-MMA (JMA)

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

prior to the noticed hearing”). Plaintiffs have not yet filed opposition briefs or statements 

of non-opposition in response to Defendants’ motions 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 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 

Defendants’ motions to dismiss on the basis of Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose.1 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 plaintiffs fail to defend their complaint against motions 

to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ unopposed motions to dismiss 

[Doc. Nos. 3, 4], and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice. The Clerk of 

Court is instructed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

1 Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the provisions of Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2 also 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.

Dated: November 28, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01654-MMA-JMA Document 8 Filed 11/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2