N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT RHONDA ESPY, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. INDEPENDENC E B LUE C R OSS, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-56295 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-00952-LAB -W M C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 10, 2015 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT a nd C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge s a n d DU, *** Distric t Judge . Pla intiff R

honda Espy a p pe a ls the dism issa l with pre judic e of he r a c tion a ga inst De fe nda

nt Inde pe n d e nc e B lue C ross. The distric t c ourt dismisse d the c a se 

# FIL E D AUG 17 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble M iranda

M . Du, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne va da , sitting by de signa tion.ba se d on he r fa ilure to file a m e m o in opposition to De fe nda n t’ s m otion to dism

iss, tre ating tha

t fa ilure a s c onse nt to thegranting of them otion, pursua nt to Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ivil Loc a l R ule 7.1(f)(3)(C ). W e va c ate the dism issa l a nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. Pro se litiga

nts a re re quire d to follow rule s, inc l uding loc a l rule s. It is e sta blishe d unde r our pre c e d e nts, howe ve r, tha t dismissa l of a

n a c tion c annot be ba se d sole ly

on a pla intiff’ s fa ilure to file an opposition m e m o. Whe n a

distric t c ourt c onside rs dism i ssa l of a c a se pursua

nt to a rule like C i vil Loc a l R

ule 7.1(f)(3)(c ), it is re quire d to we igh: “ (1) the public ’ s inte re st in e xpe ditious re solution of litiga

tion; (2) the c ourt’ s ne e d to m ana ge its doc ke t; (3) the risk of pre j udic e to the de fe nda

n ts; (4)the public polic y

fav oring disposition of c a s e s [on] the i r m e rits; a

nd (5) the ava ila

bility of le s s dra stic sa

n c t ions.” Ghazali v . Moran , 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th C ir. 1995) (pe r c uriam ) (quoting He nde r son v . Dunc an , 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th C ir. 1986)). If the distric t c ourt did not c o nside r the se fa c tors e xplic itly , a s it did not he re , we m ay

re v ie w the re c ord ourse lve s to de te rm i ne whe the r the distric t c ourt a b use d its disc re tion in dism i ssing thea c tion. Ghazali , 46 F.3d at 53–54 (c iting He nde rson , 779 F.2d a t 1424). The distric t c ourt did a dvise Espy spe c ific a lly

of C ivil Loc a l R

u le 7.1(f)(3)(C )’ s re quire m e n t to filea tim e ly opposition to a

m otion to dism

iss in a n 2orde r e nte re d e le ve n m onths e arlie r, on July 6, 2012. Tha

t fa c t we ighs in fa

vor of the d ism issa l. The ba la

nc e of the fa c tors a

ppe ars to us to point in the othe r dire c tion, howe ve r. Espy m e t othe r de a d line s a

nd ha d not shown herse lf to be prone to de la

y . Nothing in the

re c ord e sta

blishe d tha

t De fe nda nt would ha

ve suffe re d pre

judic e if Espy

ha d be e n pe rm itte d

to pre se n t he r opposition ora lly at the s c he dule d he aring or if sheha d be e n re m i nde d of the re quire m e n t a n d give n anothe r opportunity

to file a writte n re sponse prior to tha t he aring. Othe r sa

nc tions le ss dra stic tha

n dism issa l with pre

judic e c ould ha

ve be e n im

pose d. M ost im porta ntly , the public polic y

of disposing the

c a se on the m e rits strongly disfa

vore d dism issa l for fa ilure to file a tim e ly writte n opposition. We are not in a position to a sse ss the m e rits of Espy ’ s a c t ion, but it se e m s like ly tha t he r c om pla i nt c ould ha

ve survive d at the m otion to dism iss sta ge if the m otion ha d be e n c o nside re d

on the m e rits. M ost of De fe nda nt’ s a rgum e nts, both in its m

otion to dismiss file d with thedistric t c ourt a nd in its brie fing to this c ourt, pa rtic u la rly with re ga rd to c la im s 1 a

nd 3 (the ER ISA be ne fit a nd c olla te ra l e stoppe l c la im s), a ppe ar to re st m a inly on fa c tua l c onte ntions. Suc h fa c tua l a rgum e nts m ight be a ppropria te for sum

m ary judgm e nt, but they

are not ofte n

suc c e ssful on a

m otion to dismiss, give n tha

t at the m otion to dism

iss sta ge a c ourt should tre at pla

usible fa c t ua l a lle g ations in the

c om pla int a s true . Se e K

nie v e l v . ESPN , 393 F.3d 1068, 31072 (9th C ir. 2005) (c onstruing fa c t ua l a lle gations a s true in fa v or of the nonm oving pa

rty ); Marde r v . Lope

z , 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th C i r. 2006) (ge ne ra lly sa y ing tha t re vie w of a m otion to dism iss is lim i te d to the fa c ts a lle ge d in the c om pla i nt). Espy ’ s a lle gations do not a ppe ar im pla usible on the ir fa c e . The dism issa l ba se d on C ivil R ule 7.1(f)(3)(C ) is va c ate d and the m atte r is re m ande d to the distric t c ourt for furthe r proc e e dings. C osts a re aw arde d

to pla intiff-a

ppe lla n t Espy . V ACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D .

4