Martin v. Patel, 17-CV-916-JLS (WVG). (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20190329c12
Visitors: 17
Filed: Mar. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (ECF Nos. 69, 70, 71) JANIS L. SAMMARTINO , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Defendant J. Cunningham's, Defendant A. Malcolm's and Defendant R. Patel's respective Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 69, 70, 71). No oppositions to the Motions have been filed. Under the Southern District's local rules, "[i]f an opposing party fails to file [an opposition] . . . that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (ECF Nos. 69, 70, 71) JANIS L. SAMMARTINO , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Defendant J. Cunningham's, Defendant A. Malcolm's and Defendant R. Patel's respective Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 69, 70, 71). No oppositions to the Motions have been filed. Under the Southern District's local rules, "[i]f an opposing party fails to file [an opposition] . . . that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or ..
More
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO DISMISS
(ECF Nos. 69, 70, 71)
JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Defendant J. Cunningham's, Defendant A. Malcolm's and Defendant R. Patel's respective Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 69, 70, 71). No oppositions to the Motions have been filed.
Under the Southern District's local rules, "[i]f an opposing party fails to file [an opposition] . . . that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court." Civ. L. R. 7.1(f)(3)(c). "Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal." 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, Plaintiff had notice of Defendants' Motions but failed to file an opposition to any of them. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants' Motions (ECF Nos. 69, 70, 71) and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, if any, within thirty (30) days from the date this Order is electronically docketed. Failure to file within the time allotted may result in the dismissal of this action in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
