1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 LINDSEY MACK, an individual, Case No.: 24-cv-1120-CAB-VET

7 Plaintiff,

ORDER: (1) GRANTING

8 v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO

9 NOVA SOUTHEASTERN

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL

UNIVERSITY, a Private-Nonprofit 10 PROCEDURE 12(B)(6) [Doc. No. 5]; Corporation, et al,

AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT

11 Defendants. MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS 12 OF COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL

13 PROCEDURE 12(f) [Doc. No. 4] 14 15 16 17 On July 3, 2024, Defendant Nova Southeastern University filed a motion to dismiss 18 the complaint on the grounds that the complaint fails to state a claim. [Doc. No. 5.] On the 19 same date, Defendant also filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint. [Doc. No. 4.] 20 Both motions set a hearing date (for briefing purposes only) of August 9, 2024. Civil Local 21 Rule 7.1.e.2 requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or statement of non- 22 opposition no later than fourteen calendar days before the noticed hearing. Thus, based on 23 the hearing date of August 9, 2024, Plaintiff’s opposition to the motions was due on July 24 26, 2024. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to either motion. 25 Under the local rules, Plaintiff’s failure to oppose “may constitute a consent to the 26 granting of [the] motion.” See CivLR 7.1.f.3.c. District courts have broad discretion to 27 enact and apply local rules, including dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the 28 local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an 1 |}unopposed motion to dismiss under local rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to 2 oppose as consent to granting the motion). Before dismissing an action for failure to 3 ||comply with local rules, the district court “weigh[s] several factors: ‘(1) the public’s 4 ||interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 5 ||(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 6 || cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Ghazali, 46 F.3d 7 || at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). 8 Here, the Ghazali factors support granting the motion to dismiss the complaint based 9 the lack of opposition because Plaintiff's failure to oppose the motion indicates that 10 || Plaintiff has abandoned this lawsuit and consents to its dismissal. Further, the public’s 11 |/interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, the 12 of prejudice to Defendant by further delays in this litigation, and the lack of appropriate 13 |/less drastic sanctions all support dismissal. Finally, upon review of the motion and of the 14 ||record, the motion appears to be meritorious and dismissal is warranted for all of the 15 |/reasons stated in the motion. 16 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is GRANTED 17 based on the lack of opposition and on its merits for the reasons set forth above. The 18 complaint is therefore DISMISSED. 19 The motion to strike portions of the complaint is DENIED AS MOOT. 20 The Clerk of Court is instructed to CLOSE this case. 21 It is SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: August 19, 2024 € 23 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28