Sikking
Sikking v. Housing of Urban Development (HUD)
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JEFF SIKKING; BARBARA SIKKING; Case No.: 19-CV-1004 JLS (KSC)
AND LEON-QIYAM POGUE,
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
Plaintiffs, DISMISS v. 14 (ECF Nos. 14, 15)
HOUSING OF URBAN
15 DEVELOPMENT (HUD), et at., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Presently before the Court are two motions to dismiss, the first filed by Defendant 19 Richardson C. Griswald (ECF No. 14) and the second filed by Defendants City of San 20 Diego, San Diego Attorney’s Office, Mara Elliot, Deputy City Attorney Onu Omordia, and 21 San Diego Planning & Development Code Enforcement Division (ECF No. 15) (together, 22 the “Moving Defendants”). Plaintiffs have not filed any response to the Motions. 23 Under the Southern District’s local rules, “[i]f an opposing party fails to file [an 24 opposition] . . . that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other 25 request for ruling by the court.” Civ. L. R. 7.1(f)(3)(c). “Failure to follow a district court’s 26 local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,…