ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 11)

JOHN A. HOUSTON, District Judge.

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.

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.