Mimiele Goulatte v. County of Riverside

Good Law
587 F. App'x 374
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 14, 201412-57022California775 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Mimielle Goulatte, Bonnie Rhea-Scott, and their corporations, Soar, Inc., and Scott Housing, (“Appellants”) appeal the district court’s orders (1) dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the County of Riverside (“County”), (2) granting summary judgment against their other claims, and (3) granting their attorney’s motion to withdraw. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

After Appellants failed to respond to the County’s requests for production of discovery documents and the magistrate judge’s order to compel discovery, the district court dismissed Appellants’ action pursuant to the Central District of California’s local rules. We review the district court’s dismissal pursuant to its local rules for abuse of discretion. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam). Here, the Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file an opposition at least 21 days prior to the scheduled motion hearing, and under Local Rule 7-12, failure to file within the specified deadline may be deemed as consent to grant the motion. The County filed a motion to dismiss and alternative request for sanctions on August 30,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.