Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02137/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02137-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983bv Bivens Non-Prisoner

---

1

18cv2137-JAH (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

LISA ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOES 1-6; MARK HELD; GREGORY 

WILLIAMS,

Defendants.

Case No. 18cv2137-JAH (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 11)

Plaintiff Lisa Anderson (“Plaintiff”) is pro se and filed the instant action on 

September 14, 2018 against city bus drivers alleging intentional infliction of emotional 

distress. Doc. No. 11-1 at pg. 6. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Mark Held 

and Gregory Williams (collectively “Defendants”) harassed her by making noises and 

clicking sounds. Id. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants “caused the bus to release out 

on her.” Id. On January 2, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (“Motion”)

Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. See Doc. No. 11. Plaintiff’s response was due on February 11, 2019. To 

date, the Motion remains unopposed. On February 15, 2019, Defendants filed a reply brief 

in support of their Motion arguing that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint in its 

entirety and without leave to amend. See Doc. No. 15.

Case 3:18-cv-02137-JAH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv2137-JAH (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

Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) provides that “[i]f an opposing party fails to file the 

papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1e.2, that failure may constitute a 

consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” Moreover, the 

Ninth Circuit has recognized that failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper 

ground for dismissal. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming a 

district court’s dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failure to timely oppose a 

motion to dismiss where she had notice of the motion and ample time to respond).

Here, the hearing date for Defendants’ Motion was scheduled for February 25, 2019 

at 2:30 p.m. Local Rule 7.1e.2 requires that an opposition must be filed and served no later 

than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the noticed hearing. Thus, Plaintiff’s opposition 

was due by February 11, 2019. The Court has not received any opposition from Plaintiff, 

nor has she requested additional time to file such an opposition. In addition, there is no 

evidence that Defendants’ Motion failed to reach the mailing address designated in the 

proof of service or that Plaintiff is unaware of the pending Motion. Accordingly, pursuant 

to Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c), the Court deems Plaintiff’s failure to oppose Defendants’ 

Motion as consent to granting it.

Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint 

(Doc. No. 1) without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 30 days

of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 4, 2019

 

_________________________________

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02137-JAH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2