(PC) Fairchild-Littlefield v. Amezcua

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 GIGI FAIRCHILD-LITTLEFIELD, 1:20-cv-00799-JLT-GSA-PC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON- 13 vs. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT AMEZCUA’S MOTION TO DISMISS 14 R. AMEZCUA, et al., WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

15 Defendants. (ECF No. 39.)

17 18 On September 22, 2022, defendant Amezcua (“Defendant”) filed a motion to dismiss. 19 (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff Gigi Fairchild-Littlefield was required to file an opposition or a statement 20 of non-opposition to the motion within twenty-one days, but has not done so. Local Rule 230(l). 21 Local Rule 230(l) provides that the failure to oppose a motion “may be deemed a waiver 22 of any opposition to the granting of the motion . . .” The court may deem any failure to oppose 23 Defendant’s motion to dismiss as a waiver and thereafter recommend that the motion be granted 24 on that basis. 25 Further, failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper grounds for dismissal. 26 U.S. v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). Thus, a court may dismiss an action for the 27 plaintiff's failure to oppose a motion to dismiss where the applicable local rule determines that 28 failure to oppose a motion will be deemed a waiver of opposition. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 1 52 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 838 (1995) (dismissal upheld even where plaintiff 2 contends he did not receive motion to dismiss, where plaintiff had adequate notice, pursuant to 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), and time to file opposition); cf. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722, 725 (9th 4 Cir. 1995); Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949-50 (9th Cir. 1993) (motion for 5 summary judgment cannot be granted simply as a sanction for a local rules violation, without an 6 appropriate exercise of discretion). The court may also dismiss this case for Plaintiff’s failure to 7 comply with the court’s order. See Local Rule 110; Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 8 (9th Cir. 2002) 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 11 opposition, or statement of non-opposition, to the motion to dismiss filed by 12 Defendant Amezcua on September 22, 2022; and 13 2. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that 14 this case be dismissed. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16

17 Dated: October 22, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28