Escamilla Avina v. Patenaude & Felix, APC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 JORGE ESCAMILLA AVINA, on Case No. 20-cv-00166-BAS-MDD 11 behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 12 SPECIALIZED ATTORNEY SERVICES Plaintiff, INC.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 13 DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND v. AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 PATENAUDE & FELIX, APC; CREDIT (ECF No. 44) CORP. SOLUTIONS, INC.; THOMAS 15 FLYNN, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Defendant Specialized Attorney Services, Inc. (“SPS”) filed a Motion to Dismiss 19 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“Motion”) on June 11, 2021, noticing a hearing 20 date of August 9, 2021. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff’s deadline to file an opposition was July 21 26, 2021. See Civ. LR 7.1(e). No opposition was filed on the docket and SPS informed 22 the Court that it never received service of Plaintiff’s opposition. (ECF No. 47.) 23 Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2) provides that a party opposing a motion must file either 24 an opposition or a statement of non-opposition no later than fourteen calendar days prior 25 to the noticed hearing date. If a party fails to comply with this rule, “that failure may 26 constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” 27 Civ.LR 7.1(f)(3)(c). A district court may properly grant a motion to dismiss for failure to 28 respond pursuant to the court’s local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 52 (9th Cir. 1 || 1995) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for failure to file timely opposition papers where 2 || plaintiff had notice of the motion and ample time to respond). Furthermore, even though 3 || federal courts will construe pleadings liberally in their favor, “pro se litigants are bound by 4 || the rules of procedure.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54 (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 5 || (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th 6 || Cir. 2012)). 7 Because Plaintiff's deadline to respond has passed and there is no indication that he 8 || did not receive notice of SPS’s Motion, the Court deems Plaintiff's failure to oppose as 9 || consent to granting the motion. See CivLR 7.1(f)(3)(c). The Court’s own review of the 10 ||record also supports dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 11 ||}SPS’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 44) and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 12 || Plaintiff's action as to SPS. 14 A. Dd J 15 || DATED: August 30, 2021 fil A Hishaa 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28