O 1

JS-6

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California 10 11 BYUNG CHAN UM, Case № 2:19-cv-10571-ODW (AFMx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED v. MOTION TO DISMISS [8] 14

15 USDA FOOD & NUTRITION 16 SERVICES,

17 Defendant. 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff Byung Chan Um (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initiated this action 21 in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, on October 2, 2019. 22 (Notice of Removal Ex. 1 (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1-1.) Defendant USDA Food & 23 Nutrition Serices removed the action to this Court on December 13, 2019, pursuant to 24 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a). (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.) The Complaint asserts a 25 single cause of action that reads, in its entirety, “STOP THE WITHDRAWAL OF 26 APPELLANT’S [sic] AUTHORIZATION TO PARTICIPATE AS A RETAILER IN 27 SNAP.” (Compl. 2.) 28 1 On April 10, 2020, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint 2 (“Motion”) and served Plaintiff with the Motion by United States mail at the address 3 Plaintiff provided on the Complaint. (Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”), ECF No. 8; Proof of 4 Service, ECF No. 8-5; Compl. 1.) Defendant noticed the hearing on the Motion for 5 fifty-two days later, on June 1, 2020. Thus, pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, Plaintiff’s 6 opposition was due no later than May 11, 2020. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9 (requiring 7 oppositions to be filed no later than twenty-one days before the motion hearing). 8 However, to date, Plaintiff has filed no opposition. For the reasons that follow, the 9 Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion.1 10 II. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OPPOSE WARRANTS DISMISSAL 11 Central District of California Local Rule 7-12 provides that the Court “may 12 decline to consider any memorandum or other document not filed within the deadline 13 set by order or local rule.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12 (“The failure to file [a responsive 14 document], or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the 15 granting or denial of the motion . . . .”); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 16 1995) (affirming dismissal on the basis of unopposed motion pursuant to local rule). 17 Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. (See Mot.) Prior to 18 dismissing an action pursuant to a local rule, courts must weigh: “(1) the public’s 19 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 20 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 21 disposition of cases o[n] their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” 22 Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 23 1986)). “Explicit findings with respect to these factors are not required.” Ismail v. 24 Cty. of Orange, SACV 10-00901 VBF (AJW), 2012 WL 12964893, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 25 Nov. 7, 2012) (citing Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424; accord, Malone v. U.S. Postal 26 Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 129 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 819 (1988)). In 27 1 After carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deems the 28 matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing on June 1, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. 1 || Ghazali, the Ninth Circuit found these factors satisfied where the plaintiff received 2 | notice of the motion, had “ample time to respond,” yet failed to do so. See Ghazali, 3 | 46 F.3d at 54. 4 Here, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint and set the hearing 5 || date on June 1, 2020, fifty-two days after filing, nearly twice the length of time 6 || required under the Local Rules. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 6-1 (requiring a motion to be filed 7 || twenty-eight days before the date set for the hearing). Defendant served the Motion 8 | on Plaintiff via United States mail on April 10, 2020. (See Proof of Service.) Thus, Plaintiff had notice of the Motion and ample opportunity to respond. However, 10 || Plaintiff has failed to oppose or otherwise respond. The record reflects that Plaintiff 11 || has not engaged in this matter since filing the Complaint in Superior Court on October 12 | 2, 2019, despite being notified in writing that Defendant removed the matter to federal 13 || court and moved to dismiss the case. (See Decl. of Matthew J. Barragan {J 2, 5, ECF 14 || No. 8-1; Proof of Service.) Plaintiff offers no excuse for failing to oppose, nor has 15 | Plaintiff sought an extension of time or any other relief. As such, the Court construes 16 | Plaintiffs failure to respond to Defendant’s Motion as consent to the Court granting 17 || it. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12 and Ghazali, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s 18 | Motion. Defendant seeks dismissal with prejudice; however, in light of Plaintiff's pro 19 || se status, dismissal is without prejudice. 20 I. CONCLUSION 21 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 22 || (ECF No. 8) and DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice. The Clerk of 23 || the Court shall close the case. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ‘ 26 May 20, 2020 fl llisi 28 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE