Case 2:22-cv-07352-ODW-AFM Document 12 Filed 01/20/23 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:63

O 1

JS-6

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

10

11 PEIYUN CHEN, Case № 2:22-cv-07352-ODW (AFMx)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED

13 v.

MOTION TO DISMISS [9]

14 JADDOU UR MENDOZA et al.,

15 Defendants.

16 17 Defendants Ur M. Jaddou, Susan M. Curda, and Corina Luna move to dismiss 18 Plaintiff Peiyun Chen’s Complaint. (Mot. Dismiss (“Motion” or “Mot.”), ECF No. 9.) 19 After carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court 20 deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument and vacated the 21 January 23, 2023 hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. For the reasons 22 that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ unopposed Motion. 23 Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file 24 an opposition to any motion at least twenty-one days prior to the date designated for 25 hearing the motion. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 provides that 26 “[t]he failure to file any required document, or the failure to file it within the deadline, 27 may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12; 28 see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (upholding district court’s Case 2:22-cv-07352-ODW-AFM Document 12 Filed 01/20/23 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:64

1 dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint based on plaintiff’s failure to oppose motion as 2 required by local rules). Prior to dismissing an action pursuant to a local rule, a court 3 must weigh: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 4 court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the 5 public policy favoring disposition of cases o[n] their merits; and (5) the availability of 6 less drastic sanctions.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 7 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “Explicit findings with respect to these factors 8 are not required.” Ismail v. County of Orange, 8:10-cv-00901-VBF (AJWx), 9 2012 WL 12964893, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012) (first citing Henderson, 779 F.2d 10 at 1424; and then citing Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 129 (9th Cir. 11 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 819 (1988)). 12 The Court has considered the Ghazali factors and is persuaded that granting the 13 Motion is appropriate. The hearing on Defendants’ Motion was set for January 23, 14 2023. Chen’s opposition was therefore due by December 30, 2022. See Fed. R. Civ. 15 P. 6(a)(1)(c). As of the date of this Order, Chen has not filed an opposition, a request 16 for a continuance, or any other similar filing. Chen is represented by an attorney in 17 this matter, Joel Spence, a registered CM/ECF user who receives notice of the 18 electronic filings in this action. Therefore, Chen received notice of the Motion and 19 had ample opportunity to respond, including after Defendants filed a Notice of Non- 20 Receipt of Opposition, (Notice Non-Receipt Opp’n, ECF No. 10), but has failed to do 21 so. As such, the Court construes Chen’s failure to respond to Defendants’ Motion as 22 consent to the Court granting it. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 ///

2 Cage 2:22-cv-07352-ODW-AFM Document 12 Filed 01/20/23 Page 3of3 Page ID #:65

1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion and DISMISSES the Complaint. 2 || (ECF No. 9.) All dates and deadlines are VACATED. The Clerk of the Court shall 3 || close this case. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 January 20, 2022 □□ 8 Gbedliod 10 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28