ORDER

JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.

Presently before the court is defendant TeleCheck Services Inc.'s (incorrectly named as Telecheck Corp.) motion to dismiss. Doc. #5. Plaintiffs have failed to file an opposition.1

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2, an opposing party must file points and authorities in response to a motion and failure to file a timely response constitutes the party's consent to the granting of the motion and is proper grounds for dismissal. See LR IB 7-2(d); United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). However, prior to dismissal, the district court is required to weigh several factors: "(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions." Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

In light of the plaintiff's failure to respond, failure to pay the court-mandated filing fee, and weighing the factors identified in Ghazali, the court finds dismissal appropriate. Furthermore, as it appears that the complaint was filed by plaintiff Robin Lee, appearing pro se, on behalf of other individuals, the court finds the case should be dismissed. See Johns v. Co. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) ("While a non-attorney may appear pro se on his own behalf, he has no authority to appear as an attorney for other than himself.").

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant TeleCheck Services, Inc.'s motion to dismiss (doc. #5) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.