David Du v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) et al.

Opinion

O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

11 DAVID DU, Case № 2:25-cv-10069-ODW (MARx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS [9] 14 UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS) et 15 al.,

16 Defendants. 17 18 Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 19 Complaint. (Mot. Dismiss (“Motion” or “Mot.”), Dkt. No. 9.) After carefully 20 considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deems the 21 matter appropriate for decision without oral argument and VACATES the March 23, 22 2026 hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. As Plaintiff has not filed an 23 opposition, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 24 Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file 25 an opposition to any motion at least twenty-one (21) days prior to designated motion 26 hearing date. Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 provides that “[t]he failure to file any 27 required document, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent 28 to the granting or denial of the motion.” See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 1 || (9th Cir. 1995) (upholding district court’s dismissal of plaintiff's complaint based on 2|| plaintiff's failure to oppose motion as required by local rules). Prior to dismissing an 3 || action pursuant to a local rule, courts must weigh: (1) the public interest in expeditious 4|| resolution of cases, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice 5 || to the defendants, (4) public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits, and 6 || (5) the availability of less drastic measures. /d. at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “Explicit findings with respect to these factors 8] are not required.” Ismail v. County of Orange, SACV 10-00901 VBF (AJW), 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 considered the Ghazali factors and is persuaded that granting the 13 | Motion is appropriate. The hearing on Defendants’ Motion is set for March 23, 2026. 14] Plaintiffs opposition was therefore due by March 2, 2026. As of the date of this 15 || Order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, or any other filing that could be construed 16 || as a request for a continuance. Accordingly, the Court deems Plaintiff's failure to 17 || oppose as consent to granting the Motion to Dismiss, and therefore GRANTS the 18 | Motion. (Dkt. No.9.) Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The 19 || Clerk of the Court shall close this case. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 March 10, 2026

OTIS D. GHT, II 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE