MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING TO PROSECUTE AND FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS

JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.

Defendant, Ralphs Grocery Company dba Food 4 Less ("Food 4 Less"), by and through its attorneys, Wolfe & Wyman LLP, filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute and for Discovery Sanctions (Docket No. 33) on April 30, 2014. Plaintiff's response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was due by May 17, 2014.

The Court having considering the moving papers, its own files, and good cause appearing, rules as follows:

1. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(c), any Response and/or Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was required to be filed with the Court and served within fourteen (14) days after service of the Motion. No Response and/or Opposition has been submitted to the Court or served on opposing party within the prescribed timeline. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(i), the failure of an opposing party to file Points and Authority in response to any motion shall constitute consent to the granting of the motion.

2. The Court may grant the Motion to Dismiss without a hearing where a Local Rule provides another party who has failed to timely file an Opposition is deemed to have waived any objection to the Motion. Eaton v. Reno, 216 F.3d 1082, 1082 (9th Cir. 2000).

3. The Court may grant the Motion to Dismiss for failure to follow local rules if these five factors weigh in favor of dismissal: "(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).

4. The Court finds that the five Ghazali factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice.without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.