Patricia H. Lee v. Ecclesia, LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 20, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01691
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

O 1

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

11 PATRICIA LEE, Case №. 2:19-cv-01691-ODW (JPRx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 v. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [62] 14 ECCLESIA, LLC ET AL.

15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is Defendant Ecclesia, LLC’s Motion for Judgment on the 18 Pleadings (“Motion”) on the basis that Plaintiff Patricia Lee’s Complaint is barred by 19 res judicata. (Mot., ECF No. 62.) Defendant filed its Motion on December 9, 2019, 20 and set the hearing for January 6, 2020. (See Mot.) This hearing date required Plaintiff 21 to file any opposition no later than December 16, 2019. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. Plaintiff 22 did not file an opposition, and, on December 23, 2019, Defendant filed a Notice that it 23 had not received an opposition from Plaintiff. (Notice, ECF No. 63.) After carefully 24 considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter 25 appropriate for decision without oral argument and took the Motion under submission 26 on December 30, 2019. (See Scheduling Notice, ECF No. 64.) Three days later, on 27 January 2, 2020, Plaintiff applied ex parte to continue the hearing date to February 10, 28 2020, due to illness, and more specifically, limited range of motion due to back pain. 1 (See Ex Parte Appl. 6, ECF No. 65; Supp. Decl. Patricia H. Lee 2–3, ECF No. 67.) On 2 January 7, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application as moot. (ECF No. 71.) 3 Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file an opposition to a motion not 4 later than twenty-one days before the designated hearing date. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. A 5 party that does not file an opposition may be deemed to consent to the granting of the 6 motion. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12; see Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) 7 (upholding district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint based on failure to oppose 8 motion as required by local rules). Before granting the motion, the court must weigh: 9 (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of cases, (2) the court’s need to manage 10 its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants, (4) public policy favoring disposition 11 of cases on the merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic measures. Id. at 53. A 12 court is not required to consider these factors explicitly. Ismail v. Cty. of Orange, SACV 13 10-00901 VBF (AJWx), 2012 WL 12964893, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012). In 14 Ghazali, these factors were satisfied where the plaintiff received notice of the motion 15 and had “ample opportunity to respond.” Id.; see Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54. 16 Here, the motion hearing was scheduled for January 6, 2020. Therefore, 17 Plaintiff’s opposition papers were due on December 16, 2020. She had notice of the 18 Motion and ample opportunity to respond, yet Plaintiff did not file an opposition, timely 19 or otherwise. Even construing her ex parte application to continue the hearing as a 20 request to extend her deadline to oppose, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for 21 such an extension. This is particularly true where she did not contact opposing counsel 22 or the Court regarding the need for additional time until after Defendant filed a notice 23 that Plaintiff had failed to oppose, well beyond the opposition deadline. Further, in this 24 action, Plaintiff’s failure to timely oppose a previous motion resulted in the granting of 25 that motion as unopposed, so Plaintiff was on notice of the potential consequences of 26 inaction. Accordingly, the Court deems Plaintiff’s failure to oppose consent to granting 27 the Motion. 28 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Ecclesia’s Motion for Judgment on 2 || the Pleadings is GRANTED. (ECF No. 62.) 3 4 March 20, 2020 ss 5 Guede 7 OTIS D’“WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28