O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court 8 Central District of California 9 10 11 JT LEGAL GROUP, APC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-10361-ODW (PLAx) 12 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

13 v.

MOTION TO DISMISS [9]

14 KASHANI LAW, P.C. et al., 15 Defendants. 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 On December 19, 2019, Defendants Kashani Law, P.C. and Fernando Vega 18 moved to dismiss all claims against them brought by Plaintiff Akop Jack Ter-saakyan 19 (“Motion”). (See Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”), ECF No. 9.) Plaintiffs Ter-saakyan and 20 JT Legal Group, APC (“collectively, “Plaintiffs”) did not oppose the motion. For the 21 reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.1 22 II. BACKGROUND 23 Akop Jack Ter-Saakyan, an attorney, is the founder and majority owner of JT 24 Legal Group, APC (“JT Legal”). (See Notice of Removal Ex. A (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 5–6, 25 ECF No. 1.) Payton Kashani, founder of Kashani Law, P.C. (“Kashani Law”), 26 27

28 1After carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 1 employs Fernando Vega and Susan Ibeth Zamora Tinti (“Zamora Tinti”). (Compl. 2 ¶¶ 16–17.) 3 JT Legal uses software known as Google Voice (the “Software”) to 4 communicate with its clients. (Compl. ¶¶ 24–25.) These communications are 5 monitored by case managers and used to develop JT Legal’s prelitigation strategy for 6 their respective clients. (Compl. ¶ 25.) Moreover, the Software contains privileged 7 and confidential information, such as the identities of its clients and details regarding 8 their cases. (Compl. ¶ 26.) Each case manager accesses the Software using a unique 9 username and password, which is changed immediately once the case manager’s 10 employment ends. (Compl. ¶¶ 33–34.) 11 Vega worked for JT Legal from January 21 to September 11, 2019, and during 12 his role as a case manager he had access to the Software. (Compl. ¶ 7.) Similarly, 13 Zamora Tinti worked for JT Legal from February 11 to November 15, 2019, and 14 during her time as a case manager she had access to the Software. (Compl. ¶ 11.) 15 Plaintiffs allege that when Vega’s employment ended, before JT Legal could change 16 Vega’s password, Vega changed it himself, granting him continued access to 17 information contained on the Software. (Compl. ¶ 38.) Plaintiffs further allege that 18 Vega “downloaded confidential, proprietary client information after his employment 19 terminated and without authorization.” (Compl. ¶ 39.) Zamora Tinti was terminated 20 on November 15, 2019. (Compl. ¶ 11.) 21 Vega and Zamora Tinti are presently case managers for Kashani Law. (Compl. 22 ¶¶ 9, 13.) Plaintiffs allege that Vega is using the data from the Software to solicit JT 23 Legal’s clients for Kashani Law, resulting in the loss of clients. (Compl. ¶¶ 39–40.) 24 Plaintiffs further allege that Zamora Tinti and Kashani “conspired with and aided and 25 abetted” Vega in misappropriating JT Legal’s privileged information. (Compl. 26 ¶¶ 13, 16.) 27 On December 3, 2019, Plaintiffs initiated this action against Defendants 28 Kashani, Vega, Zamora Tinti, and Kashani Law. (See Compl.) Plaintiffs assert six 1 claims against all defendants: (1) misappropriation of trade secrets; (2) unfair 2 competition; (3) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; 3 (4) intentional interference with contractual relations; (5) trespass against chattels; and 4 (6) violation of the Stored Communications Act. (Compl. at 10–17.2) 5 On December 19, 2019, Defendants Kashani Law and Fernando Vega 6 (“Defendants”) moved to dismiss all claims brought by Plaintiff Akop Jack Ter- 7 saakyan on the grounds that Ter-saakyan improperly brings shareholder derivative 8 claims in an individual capacity. (See Mot. 1.) Plaintiffs did not oppose and the Court 9 took the motion under submission. 10 Subsequently, on January 22, 2020, Defendants Zamora Tinti and Kashani 11 moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for failure to state a claim. (Mot. to Dismiss 12 (“Second MTD”), ECF No. 13.) Plaintiffs opposed this motion and Defendants filed a 13 reply. (See Opp’n to Second MTD, ECF No. 18; Reply in Supp. of Second MTD, 14 ECF No. 19.) 15 III. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OPPOSE WARRANTS DISMISSAL 16 Defendants Kashani Law and Fernando Vega noticed a hearing for the instant 17 Motion on January 27, 2020. (See Mot.) Thus, pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, Plaintiffs’ 18 opposition was due no later than January 6, 2020. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9 (requiring 19 oppositions to be filed no later than twenty-one days before the motion hearing). To 20 date, Plaintiffs’ have not opposed this Motion. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ opposition to 21 Defendant Kashani’s and Zamora Tinti’s subsequent motion to dismiss does not 22 address the instant Motion and, therefore, cannot be construed as an attempt to oppose 23 this Motion. (See Opp’n to Second MTD.) 24 Central District of California Local Rule 7-12 provides that “[t]he failure to file 25 [a responsive document], or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed 26 consent to the granting or denial of the motion.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12; Ghazali v. 27

28 2 Plaintiffs’ causes of action pleaded in their complaint do not match the complaint’s caption. The Court lists the causes of action as pleaded. 1 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal on the basis of unopposed 2 motion pursuant to local rule). 3 Defendants move to dismiss all claims by Plaintiff Ter-Saakyan. (See Mot.) 4 Prior to dismissing a Plaintiff’s action pursuant to a local rule, courts must weigh: 5 “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 6 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 7 favoring disposition of cases o[n] their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 8 sanctions.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 9 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “Explicit findings with respect to these factors are not 10 required.” Ismail v. Cty. of Orange, SACV 10-00901 VBF (AJW), 2012 WL 11 12964893, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012) (citing Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424; 12 accord, Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 129 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 13 488 U.S. 819 (1988)). In Ghazali, the Ninth Circuit found these factors satisfied 14 where the plaintiff received notice of the motion, had “ample opportunity to respond,” 15 yet failed to do so. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54. 16 Here, Plaintiffs received notice of the motion and had ample opportunity to 17 respond; however, Plaintiffs failed to oppose or otherwise respond. Plaintiffs are 18 represented by counsel in this matter and their attorney is a registered CM/ECF user 19 who receives notice of electronic filings in this action. Further, parties met and 20 conferred regarding Defendants’ perceived deficiencies in the complaint. Thus, 21 Plaintiffs had notice of the Motion. In contrast to the instant Motion, Plaintiffs 22 opposed Defendant Kashani’s and Zamora Tinti’s motion to dismiss. (Opp’n to 23 Second MTD.) In that opposition, Plaintiffs acknowledge that Defendants met and 24 conferred with them regarding the instant Motion, but offer no excuse for failing to 25 oppose. (Opp’n to Second MTD 1–2.) As such, the Court construes Plaintiffs’ failure 26 to respond to Defendants’ Motion as consent to the Court granting it. 27 28 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 7-12 and Ghazali, the Court GRANTS 3 | Defendants’ Motion. (ECF No. 9.) 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 March 31, 2020 8 ’ Giddli 10 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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