Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01363/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01363-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 47:0227(b)(3) Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991

---

1

17-CV-1363-JLS (WVG)

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

DEBORAH TUCK,

Plaintiff,

v.

CREDIT ONE BANK, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-CV-1363-JLS (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO DISMISS

(ECF No. 26)

Presently before the Court is Defendant Trans Union LLC’s Motion to Dismiss for 

Failure to State a Claim, (ECF No. 26). 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 generally 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 does allow 

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 14 days prior to the noticed hearing. Civ. L. R. 7.1.e.2. 

The hearing for the present Motion was set for November 16, 2017 at 1:30 p.m., thus any 

opposition was due on November 2, 2017.

In determining whether to dismiss an action, the court is required to weigh several 

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

Case 3:17-cv-01363-JLS-WVG Document 34 Filed 11/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17-CV-1363-JLS (WVG)

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

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. Plaintiff had notice of the Motion yet 

failed to file a timely opposition. Plaintiff has settled with five other defendants in this 

matter, (see ECF No. 27), and has engaged in a settlement disposition conference with 

Magistrate Judge Gallo, (see ECF No. 31), so Plaintiff is showing an intention to participate 

in this lawsuit, at least with the settling defendants. Further, Plaintiff has not provided any 

excuse for her failure to timely file an opposition to the present Motion. The Court cannot 

continue waiting for Plaintiff to take action. Although the Court construes pleadings 

liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure. King v. Atiyeh,

814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); 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 pro se 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 it dismisses 

Defendant from this matter. In fact, Defendant has requested the dismissal. This factor 

weighs in favor of dismissal. As for the fifth factor, where the 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 November 8, 2017, the Court filed an 

Case 3:17-cv-01363-JLS-WVG Document 34 Filed 11/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17-CV-1363-JLS (WVG)

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

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

No. 33.) In that Order, the Court noted that no opposition had been filed. (Id.) Still, 

Plaintiff filed no opposition. This factor therefore weighs in favor of dismissal.

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

Dismiss as unopposed, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion and DISMISSES WITH 

PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Trans Union LLC. The Clerk SHALL

remove Defendant Trans Union LLC from the docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01363-JLS-WVG Document 34 Filed 11/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3