Filed: Jul. 31, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 31, 2017
Summary: ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. No. 7] MICHAEL M. ANELLO , District Judge . Plaintiff Jemy Attallah filed this action against Defendants the United States of America, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Corrections Corporation of America, Inc. 1 See Doc. No. 1. On June 29, 2017, Defendant Corrections Corporation of America, Inc. ("Defendant Corrections Corporation") filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Ci
Summary: ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. No. 7] MICHAEL M. ANELLO , District Judge . Plaintiff Jemy Attallah filed this action against Defendants the United States of America, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Corrections Corporation of America, Inc. 1 See Doc. No. 1. On June 29, 2017, Defendant Corrections Corporation of America, Inc. ("Defendant Corrections Corporation") filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civ..
More
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. No. 7]
MICHAEL M. ANELLO, District Judge.
Plaintiff Jemy Attallah filed this action against Defendants the United States of America, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Corrections Corporation of America, Inc.1 See Doc. No. 1. On June 29, 2017, Defendant Corrections Corporation of America, Inc. ("Defendant Corrections Corporation") filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Doc. No. 7. The Court set the motion for hearing on August 7, 2017, meaning that Plaintiff was required to file a response in opposition on or before July 24, 2017. See Civ. LR 7.1(e)(2) (stating that "each party opposing a motion . . . must file that opposition or statement of non-opposition . . . not later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the noticed hearing"). Plaintiff has not yet filed an opposition brief or a statement of non-opposition in response to Defendant Corrections Corporation's motion to dismiss. As a result, Defendant requests the Court grant its unopposed motion to dismiss. See Doc. No. 9.
The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may grant an unopposed motion to dismiss where a local rule permits, but does not require, it to do so. See generally, Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c provides, "[i]f an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court." As such, the Court has the option of granting Defendant's motion on the basis of Plaintiff's failure to oppose.2 Generally, public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits. See Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). However, a case cannot move forward toward resolution on the merits when the plaintiff fails to defend his or her complaint against a Rule 12 motion. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's unopposed motion to dismiss, and DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims as to Defendant Corrections Corporation without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
