1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MASOUD HAIRANI, Case No.: 24-CV-614 JLS (MSB)

11 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

12 v. MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 7.1(f)(3)(c) 13 ANTONY J. BLINKEN, U.S. Secretary of

State; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 14 (ECF No. 8) Defendants. 15 16 Presently before the Court is Defendants Antony J. Blinken and U.S. Department of 17 State’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Mot.,” ECF No. 8).1,2 Plaintiff has not 18 opposed the Motion despite the requirements of Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2). For the reasons 19 that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 20 7.1(f)(3)(c). 21 BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff Masoud Hairani brought this action on April 1, 2024. He alleges his fiancé, 23 Mansoureh Ashourion, an Iranian national, applied for a K-1 visa application on 24

25 1 All citations to electronically filed documents refer to the blue pagination numbers assigned by the 26 CM/ECF system.

27 2 Defendants also sought to incorporate by reference a declaration attached to their Motion, see Mot. 28 at 12, but that request is DENIED as MOOT given the Court’s resolution of the Motion. 1 January 23, 2022, so she could join him in the United States “to commence their marital 2 life and family planning.” Complaint (“Compl.”) at 2, ECF No. 1. Despite completing an 3 interview at the United States Embassy in Abu Dhabi on September 28, 2023, Ashourion 4 still awaits a final decision more than six months later. Id. Plaintiff alleges this delay is 5 unreasonable and has caused him “undue hardship.” Id. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief 6 ordering Defendants to process Ashourion’s K-1 visa application within sixty days of this 7 Court’s order. Id. at 3. 8 Defendants filed the instant Motion on August 23, 2024. In the Motion, Defendants 9 raise multiple grounds for dismissal, including failure to affirmatively state the Court’s 10 jurisdictional grounds in contravention of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1), see Mot. 11 at 12, and failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Mot. 12 at 13. 13 The Motion was originally noticed for a hearing on September 26, 2024. 14 Accordingly, per Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), Plaintiff was required to respond to the Motion 15 on or before September 12, 2024. He failed to do so. See Docket. Plaintiff’s silence has 16 since continued, though the Court noted his noncompliance when taking the Motion under 17 submission. See ECF No. 10. 18 DISCUSSION 19 The Ninth Circuit has held that, pursuant to a local rule, a district court may properly 20 grant a motion to dismiss for failure to respond to a motion. See Ghazali v. Moran, 21 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for failure to file timely 22 opposition papers where plaintiff had notice of the motion and ample time to respond). 23 Here, a local rule authorizes the Court to grant the Motion. Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) 24 provides: “If an opposing party fails to file [an opposition] in the manner required by Civil 25 Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other 26 request for ruling by the court.” 27 In determining whether to dismiss an action on these grounds, the Court must weigh 28 several factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 1 court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 2 policy favoring disposition of cases of [sic] their merits; and (5) the availability of less 3 drastic sanctions.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 4 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). The first and fourth factors cut in opposite directions. See Yourish 5 v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he public’s interest in expeditious 6 resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”); Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 7 138 F.3d 393, 401 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating the fourth factor weighs against dismissal). The 8 Court therefore considers the substance of factors two, three, and five. 9 Here, the second factor weighs in favor of dismissal. The Court must manage its 10 docket to ensure the efficient provision of justice. Plaintiff had notice of the Motion yet 11 failed to file a timely opposition. Further, Plaintiff has not provided any excuse for said 12 failure. The Court cannot continue waiting for Plaintiff to take action, and a case cannot 13 move forward when the plaintiff fails to defend his case. Plaintiff’s noncompliance is not 14 excusable merely because he has no legal representation. See Jacobsen v. Filler, 15 790 F.2d 1362, 1364–65 (holding that even a pro se litigant is not entitled to a warning of 16 the consequences of failing to file an opposition). 17 The third factor, which considers the prejudice to a defendant resulting from a 18 plaintiff’s inaction, also favors dismissal. See Malone v. U.S.P.S., 833 F.2d 128, 131 19 (9th Cir. 1987). Under this factor, “the risk of prejudice . . . is related to [Plaintiff’s] reason 20 for defaulting in failing to timely” file his opposition. Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991. Where, 21 as here, a plaintiff fails to provide any excuse for his conduct or contact the Court regarding 22 said failure, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. See, e.g., Enders v. Countrywide 23 Home Loans, Inc., No. C 09-3213SBA, 2009 WL 4018512, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 24 Nov. 16, 2009). 25 As to the fifth factor, where the plaintiff does not oppose dismissal, it is “unnecessary 26 for the Court to consider less drastic alternatives.” Rodriguez v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 27 No. 2:16–CV–5962–ODW(SK), 2016 WL 4581402, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2016). Still, 28 the Court did employ the less drastic alternative of giving notice to the Parties that no 1 || opposition had been filed. As noted above, the Court filed an Order vacating the hearing 2 ||on the Motion and taking the matter under submission. See ECF No. 10. In that Order, the 3 ||Court noted that no opposition had been filed, even though Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2) 4 required Plaintiff to respond. See id. Still, Plaintiff remained silent. This factor therefore 5 || weighs in favor of dismissal as well. 6 CONCLUSION 7 Finding that the Ghazali factors weigh in favor of granting the unopposed Motion, 8 Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) pursuant to Civil Local 9 7.1((3)(c). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 || Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff MAY FILE an amended complaint curing 11 deficiencies identified in Defendants’ Motion within fourteen (14) days of the date on 12 which this Order is electronically docketed. Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended 13 || pleading in accordance with this Order, the Court will enter a final order dismissing this 14 action based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute in compliance with a court order 15 ||requiring amendment. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a 16 || plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court 17 || may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ||Dated: September 26, 2024 tt 0 ja Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28