Filed: Jun. 03, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 03, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 8); VACATING JUNE 12, 2019 HEARING; AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO STRIKE (ECF NO. 4). LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . This case concerns a three-day Latino/Mexican music festival that took place March 17-19, 2017, at the International Agri-Center in Tulare, California ("Pueblo Fest"). See ECF No. 1, Complaint, at 1. Plaintiffs, Esau Torres and Euler Torres, the promoters and organizers of Pueblo Fest, allege that the City
Summary: ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 8); VACATING JUNE 12, 2019 HEARING; AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO STRIKE (ECF NO. 4). LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . This case concerns a three-day Latino/Mexican music festival that took place March 17-19, 2017, at the International Agri-Center in Tulare, California ("Pueblo Fest"). See ECF No. 1, Complaint, at 1. Plaintiffs, Esau Torres and Euler Torres, the promoters and organizers of Pueblo Fest, allege that the City o..
More
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 8); VACATING JUNE 12, 2019 HEARING; AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO STRIKE (ECF NO. 4).
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.
This case concerns a three-day Latino/Mexican music festival that took place March 17-19, 2017, at the International Agri-Center in Tulare, California ("Pueblo Fest"). See ECF No. 1, Complaint, at ¶ 1. Plaintiffs, Esau Torres and Euler Torres, the promoters and organizers of Pueblo Fest, allege that the City of Tulare ("City") and various City officials impeded promotion and implementation of the event in various ways, including by selective and unfair implementation of provisions of the City Municipal Code applicable to events ("Ordinance"), on account of Plaintiffs' race and national origin, in violation of Plaintiffs' rights under the United States and California Constitutions. See generally id. On May 8, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that the claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, are too conclusory and/or are implausible, and that the Ordinance is constitutional. ECF No. 6. Plaintiffs failed to timely oppose the motion. In accordance with Local Rule 230(c), Plaintiffs are therefore not permitted to be heard in opposition to the motion.
The Court finds this matter is suitable for decision on the papers pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) and VACATES the hearing on the motion, currently set for June 12, 2019. The Court declines to address the arguments made in the motion in detail and instead summarily DISMISSES the Complaint on the basis that the plaintiff expresses no opposition to the motion to dismiss. See Way v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 2:16-CV-02244 TLN KJN, 2019 WL 1405599, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019) (reviewing local rules and caselaw permitting summary dismissal under similar circumstances). As this is the first round of motions to dismiss, this dismissal will be WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiffs shall have twenty (20) days to amend the Complaint. If they fail to file an amended complaint by that deadline, the case will be closed. In addition, in light of this ruling, the motion to strike, ECF No. 4, is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
