Garrison v. Ringgold

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: August 26, 2019
• Docket: 3:19-cv-00244
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOMMY GARRISON, an individual, Case No.: 19cv244-GPC(RBB) and CHRISTINE GARRISON, an 12 individual , ORDER GRANTING 13 PLAINTIFFS/COUNTERDEFENDANTS’ Plaintiffs, MOTION TO DISMISS 14 v. COUNTERCLAIM AS UNOPPOSED 15 AND DENYING REGINALD BUDDY RINGGOLD, III PLAINTIFFS/COUNTERDEFENDANTS’ 16 aka Rasool Abdul Rahim El, an REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES individual, ROSEGOLD 17 INVESTMENTS, LLP, a Delaware [Dkt. No. 20.] 18 Partnership, and MASTER INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., a 19 California Corporation, 20 Defendants. 21

22 Before the Court is Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants’ motion to strike and dismiss the 23 counterclaims raised by Defendant/Counterclaimant against them. (Dkt. No. 20.) 24 Defendant did not file an opposition. On August 6, 2019, in reply, Plaintiffs asked the 25 Court to grant the motion in its entirety as unopposed pursuant to S.D. Local Civil Rule 26 7.1(f)(3)(c). (Dkt. No. 23.) Based on the reasoning below, the Court GRANTS 27 28 1 Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss as unopposed and DENIES without prejudice their request 2 for attorney’s fees. 3 Background 4 Plaintiff Tommy Garrison, who is over 65 years old, and his wife, Plaintiff 5 Christine Garrison (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint for securities violations 6 and financial elder abuse against Defendant Reginald Buddy Ringgold, III aka Rasool 7 Abdul Rahim El, (“Defendant” or “Ringgold”), Rosegold Investments LLP, and Master 8 Investment Group, Inc.1 (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 16, 21, 22.) On May 13, 2019, the Court 9 granted in part and denied in part Defendant Ringgold’s motion to dismiss with leave to 10 amend. (Dkt. No. 16.) On May 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging 11 the same three causes of action. (Dkt. No. 17.) Defendant Ringgold, proceeding pro se, 12 filed an answer and a counterclaim. (Dkt. No. 18.) The counterclaim alleges malicious 13 prosecution and abuse of process, defamation, emotional distress, and seeks punitive 14 damages. (Dkt. No. 18 at 18-20.) On July 9, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss 15 the counterclaims under California’s anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, 16 or anti-Slapp statute, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(e)(4), 17 or in the alternative, dismissed as insufficient as a matter of law. (Dkt. No. 20.) No 18 opposition has been filed. 19 Discussion 20 Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2 requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or 21 statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing (or 22 when otherwise scheduled by the Court). Civ. Local R. 7.1.e.2; Turner v. Berryhill, No. 23 17CV1130-CAB-BGS, 2018 WL 501010, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2018). Failure to 24 comply with the rule “may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion.” Civ. Local 25 R. 7.1.f.3.c. Local rules have the force of law, United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 26

27 1 Default was entered against Defendants Rosegold Investments LLP and Master Investment Group, Inc. 28 1 ||574-75 (1958), and courts have discretion to dismiss cases for failure to comply with the 2 ||local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 36 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an 3 || unopposed motion to dismiss under local rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to 4 || oppose as consent to grant the motion). 5 Here, the Court issued a briefing scheduling requiring Defendant to file an 6 || opposition on or before July 26, 2019. (Dkt. No. 21.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an 7 ||opposition. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the 8 ||}counterclaims as unopposed. See Ghazali, 36 F.3d at 53. 9 In their motion, Plaintiffs also request attorneys’ fees in the amount of $8,150.00 10 || for the time spent preparing the anti-Slapp motion. 11 The anti-SLAPP statute provides that “a prevailing defendant on a special motion 12 || to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs.” Cal. Civ. Proc. 13 || Code § 425.16(c). Here, the Court grants the motion to dismiss the counterclaim as 14 || unopposed. In their reply, Plaintiffs do not address whether they are entitled to attorney’s 15 || fees and costs as prevailing parties when a motion to dismiss is granted. Accordingly, the 16 |}Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs. 17 Conclusion 18 Based on the above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the 19 |/counterclaim as unopposed. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees 20 || without prejudice. Plaintiffs may refile their request for attorney’s fees within 20 days of 21 || the date of this Order demonstrating that they are entitled to attorneys’ fees under the 22 anti-SLAPP statute as prevailing parties. The hearing set on September 6, 2019 shall be 23 || vacated. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ||Dated: August 26, 2019 26 Hon. athe Cae 27 United States District Judge 28