Opinion
CASE NO. 12cv01340 WQH BGS
07-27-2012
ROBERTA FOX MABLE, Plaintiff, v. HARRAH'S RINCON CASINO & RESORT, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER
HAYES, Judge:
The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint filed by specially appearing Defendant Harrah's Rincon Casino & Resort. (ECF No. 3).
I. Background
On April 20, 2012, Plaintiff Roberta Fox Mable initiated this action by filing the Complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. (ECF No. 3-3). On June 5, 2012, Defendant, appearing specially, removed the action to this Court, alleging federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1).
On June 12, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss seeking the dismissal of all claims against Defendant in the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(1), (2), (6) and (7). (ECF No. 3). Defendant contends that: (1) this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute; (2) this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant; (3) the Rincon Tribe is an indispensable party which cannot be joined in the federal action; and (4) Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 3-1).
The record indicates that Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.
II. Discussion
A district court may properly grant an unopposed motion to dismiss pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a motion for failure to respond. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Civil Local Rule 7.1 provides: "If an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court." S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(a). "Although there is ... a [public] policy favoring disposition on the merits, it is the responsibility of the moving party to move towards that disposition at a reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics." In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1454 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirming grant of motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute); see also Steel v. City of San Diego, No. 09cvl743, 2009 WL 3715257, at * 1 (S.D. Cal., Nov. 5, 2009) (dismissing action pursuant to local Rule 7.1 for plaintiff's failure to respond to a motion to dismiss).
The docket reflects that Plaintiff was served with the Notice of Removal and Motion to Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 1 at 6-8, 4). The hearing for the Motion to Dismiss was noticed for July 16, 2012. Civil Local Rule 7.1 provides: "each party opposing a motion ... must file that opposition ... with the clerk ... not later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the noticed hearing." S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 7.1(e)(2). As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition. The Court concludes that "the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation," "the court's need to manage its docket," and "the risk of prejudice to the defendants" weigh in favor of granting the Motion to Dismiss for failure to file an opposition. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
III. Conclusion
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by specially appearing Defendant Harrah's Rincon Casino & Resort is GRANTED. (ECF No. 3). The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
______________
WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge