ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT ROBIN "ROSS" COOPER AND VERIMATRIX'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [Doc. 41]

THOMAS J. WHELAN, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant Robin "Ross" Cooper's ("Cooper") motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). [Doc. 41]. This motion was joined by Defendant Verimatrix, Inc. [Doc. 42]. The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). To date, Plaintiffs have neither opposed Defendants' motion, nor requested additional time to do so. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss. The Ninth Circuit has held that pursuant to a local rule, a district court may properly grant a motion to dismiss for failure to respond. See generally Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for failure to file timely opposition papers where plaintiff had notice of the moton and ample time to respond). Civil Local Rule 7.1(f.3.c) provides that "[i]f an opposing party fails to file papers in the manner required by 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."

Here, the Plaintiffs did not file an opposition and have not requested additional time in which to do so. Additionally, Plaintiffs provide no evidence that the Defandants' moving papers failed to reach the mailing address designated in Defendants' proof of service or that Plaintiffs were not aware of this motion. Relying on Civil Local Rule 7.1 (f.3.c), the Court deems Plaintiffs' failure to oppose Defendants' motion as consent to its merits, and accordingly will grant the motion on that basis.

For the forgoing reasons, the court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with leave to amend [Doc. 41]. Should Plaintiffs choose to file an Amended Complaint, they must do so on or before March 9, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.