1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIALI T.; and Case No.: 23-CV-677 JLS (DDL) FACUNDO J.A., 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiffs, 13 DISMISS v. 14 (ECF No. 3) ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS; 15 MERRICK GARLAND; and 16 LOREN MILLER, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Presently before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (“Mot.,” ECF No. 3) filed by 20 Defendants Alejandro Mayorkas, Merrick Garland, and Loren Miller (collectively, 21 “Defendants”). No opposition to the Motion has been filed. For the reasons that follow, 22 the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion both pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) 23 and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 24 BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiffs Jiali T. and Facundo J.A. bring this action to compel U.S. Citizenship and 26 Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to process Plaintiffs’ “Applications to Register 27 Permanent Residence or Adjust Status” (“I-485 Petitions”). See ECF No. 1 at 2 28 (“Compl.”). USCIS received Plaintiffs’ I-485 Petitions on October 29, 2021. As of April 1 13, 2023, when Plaintiffs filed the Complaint, USCIS had yet adjudicate the Petitions. See 2 id. Per Defendants, however, USCIS processed and approved Plaintiffs’ I-485 Petitions 3 on June 14, 2023. ECF No. 3-1 at 2. The instant Motion followed. 4 DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 7.1(f)(3)(c) 5 The Ninth Circuit has held that, pursuant to a local rule, a district court may properly 6 grant a motion to dismiss for failure to respond to a motion. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 7 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for failure to file timely opposition 8 papers where plaintiff had notice of the motion and ample time to respond). Here, a local 9 rule allows the Court to grant the Motion. Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) provides: “If an 10 opposing party fails to file [an opposition] in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 11 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request 12 for ruling by the Court.” Unless the Court orders otherwise, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 13 7.1(e)(2), an opposition must be filed 14 days prior to the noticed hearing. The hearing for 14 the present Motion was originally set for August 31, 2023, at 1:30 p.m.; thus, any 15 opposition was due on August 17, 2023. See Docket. The Court later vacated the hearing 16 and delayed Plaintiffs’ deadline until August 24, 2023. See ECF No. 4. 17 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court is required to weigh several 18 factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 19 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 20 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 21 sanctions.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 22 (9th Cir. 1986)). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the first and fourth factors cut in 23 opposite directions. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) 24 (noting that the first factor always weighs in favor of dismissal); Hernandez v. City of El 25 Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 401 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining that the fourth factor always weighs 26 against dismissal). Therefore, the Court considers the substance of factors two, three, and 27 five. 28 / / / 1 Here, the second and third factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The Court must 2 manage its docket to ensure the efficient provision of justice. Plaintiffs had notice of the 3 Motion yet failed to file a timely opposition. Plaintiffs have not provided any excuse for 4 their failure to timely file an opposition to the present Motion. The Court cannot continue 5 waiting for Plaintiffs to take action, and a case cannot move forward when the plaintiffs 6 fail to defend their case. As to the third factor, the Court finds no risk of prejudice to 7 Defendants if it dismisses this action. In fact, Defendants have requested the dismissal. 8 Thus, this factor also weighs in favor of dismissal. 9 As to the fifth factor, where the plaintiff does not oppose dismissal, it is “unnecessary 10 for the Court to consider less drastic alternatives.” Rodriguez v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 11 No. 2:16–CV–5962–ODW(SK), 2016 WL 4581402, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2016). Still, 12 the Court did employ the less drastic alternative by informing Plaintiffs that they were 13 required to file a response to the Motion. See ECF No. 4 (“[Plaintiffs] shall file their 14 opposition or non-opposition to the Motion on or before August 24, 2023.” (emphasis 15 omitted)). Still, Plaintiffs filed no opposition. This factor therefore weighs in favor of 16 dismissal as well. 17 Finding that the Ghazali factors weigh in favor of granting the unopposed Motion, 18 the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). 19 DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 20 Defendants also move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for lack of subject matter 21 jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Specifically, Defendants 22 argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction because the case is moot and no longer presents a 23 justiciable case or controversy. See generally Mot. 24 Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction that “may not grant relief 25 absent a constitutional or valid statutory grant of jurisdiction” and are “presumed to lack 26 jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” A–Z Int’l v. 27 Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). One 28 constitutional prerequisite to subject matter jurisdiction is the existence of “actual cases or 1 controversies.” San Diego Cnty. Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union, 65 2 F.4th 1012, 1022 (9th Cir. 2023). Courts thus lack jurisdiction when the issues presented 3 by a case “are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the 4 outcome, or, in other words, when a case is “moot.” McBride Cotton & Cattle Corp. v. 5 Veneman, 290 F.3d 973, 982 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 6 (1982)). 7 Key to the mootness inquiry is “whether the court is ‘able to grant effective relief.’” 8 Id. (quoting Murphy, 455 U.S. at 481). “A case becomes moot when interim relief or events 9 have deprived the court of the ability to redress the party’s injuries.” United States v. Alder 10 Creek Water Co., 823 F.2d 343, 345 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). So, a case is moot 11 “when a plaintiff has received all of the relief he requested in his complaint.” Von Staich 12 v. Hamlet, No. 04-16011, 2007 WL 3001726, at *2 (9th Cir. Oct. 16, 2007). As Defendants 13 are asserting mootness, they “bear[] a ‘heavy burden of establishing that there is no 14 effective relief remaining for the court to provide.” United States v. Strong, 489 F.3d 1055, 15 1059 (9th Cir. 2007). 16 The Court agrees with Defendants that this case is moot. In their Complaint, 17 Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ I-485 Petitions. See 18 Compl. at 2. Plaintiffs did not request any further relief. See generally Compl.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIALI T.; and Case No.: 23-CV-677 JLS (DDL) FACUNDO J.A., 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiffs, 13 DISMISS v. 14 (ECF No. 3) ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS; 15 MERRICK GARLAND; and 16 LOREN MILLER, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Presently before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (“Mot.,” ECF No. 3) filed by 20 Defendants Alejandro Mayorkas, Merrick Garland, and Loren Miller (collectively, 21 “Defendants”). No opposition to the Motion has been filed. For the reasons that follow, 22 the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion both pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) 23 and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 24 BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiffs Jiali T. and Facundo J.A. bring this action to compel U.S. Citizenship and 26 Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to process Plaintiffs’ “Applications to Register 27 Permanent Residence or Adjust Status” (“I-485 Petitions”). See ECF No. 1 at 2 28 (“Compl.”). USCIS received Plaintiffs’ I-485 Petitions on October 29, 2021. As of April 1 13, 2023, when Plaintiffs filed the Complaint, USCIS had yet adjudicate the Petitions. See 2 id. Per Defendants, however, USCIS processed and approved Plaintiffs’ I-485 Petitions 3 on June 14, 2023. ECF No. 3-1 at 2. The instant Motion followed. 4 DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 7.1(f)(3)(c) 5 The Ninth Circuit has held that, pursuant to a local rule, a district court may properly 6 grant a motion to dismiss for failure to respond to a motion. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 7 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for failure to file timely opposition 8 papers where plaintiff had notice of the motion and ample time to respond). Here, a local 9 rule allows the Court to grant the Motion. Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) provides: “If an 10 opposing party fails to file [an opposition] in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 11 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request 12 for ruling by the Court.” Unless the Court orders otherwise, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 13 7.1(e)(2), an opposition must be filed 14 days prior to the noticed hearing. The hearing for 14 the present Motion was originally set for August 31, 2023, at 1:30 p.m.; thus, any 15 opposition was due on August 17, 2023. See Docket. The Court later vacated the hearing 16 and delayed Plaintiffs’ deadline until August 24, 2023. See ECF No. 4. 17 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court is required to weigh several 18 factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 19 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 20 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 21 sanctions.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 22 (9th Cir. 1986)). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the first and fourth factors cut in 23 opposite directions. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) 24 (noting that the first factor always weighs in favor of dismissal); Hernandez v. City of El 25 Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 401 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining that the fourth factor always weighs 26 against dismissal). Therefore, the Court considers the substance of factors two, three, and 27 five. 28 / / / 1 Here, the second and third factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The Court must 2 manage its docket to ensure the efficient provision of justice. Plaintiffs had notice of the 3 Motion yet failed to file a timely opposition. Plaintiffs have not provided any excuse for 4 their failure to timely file an opposition to the present Motion. The Court cannot continue 5 waiting for Plaintiffs to take action, and a case cannot move forward when the plaintiffs 6 fail to defend their case. As to the third factor, the Court finds no risk of prejudice to 7 Defendants if it dismisses this action. In fact, Defendants have requested the dismissal. 8 Thus, this factor also weighs in favor of dismissal. 9 As to the fifth factor, where the plaintiff does not oppose dismissal, it is “unnecessary 10 for the Court to consider less drastic alternatives.” Rodriguez v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 11 No. 2:16–CV–5962–ODW(SK), 2016 WL 4581402, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2016). Still, 12 the Court did employ the less drastic alternative by informing Plaintiffs that they were 13 required to file a response to the Motion. See ECF No. 4 (“[Plaintiffs] shall file their 14 opposition or non-opposition to the Motion on or before August 24, 2023.” (emphasis 15 omitted)). Still, Plaintiffs filed no opposition. This factor therefore weighs in favor of 16 dismissal as well. 17 Finding that the Ghazali factors weigh in favor of granting the unopposed Motion, 18 the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). 19 DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 20 Defendants also move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for lack of subject matter 21 jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Specifically, Defendants 22 argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction because the case is moot and no longer presents a 23 justiciable case or controversy. See generally Mot. 24 Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction that “may not grant relief 25 absent a constitutional or valid statutory grant of jurisdiction” and are “presumed to lack 26 jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” A–Z Int’l v. 27 Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). One 28 constitutional prerequisite to subject matter jurisdiction is the existence of “actual cases or 1 controversies.” San Diego Cnty. Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union, 65 2 F.4th 1012, 1022 (9th Cir. 2023). Courts thus lack jurisdiction when the issues presented 3 by a case “are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the 4 outcome, or, in other words, when a case is “moot.” McBride Cotton & Cattle Corp. v. 5 Veneman, 290 F.3d 973, 982 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 6 (1982)). 7 Key to the mootness inquiry is “whether the court is ‘able to grant effective relief.’” 8 Id. (quoting Murphy, 455 U.S. at 481). “A case becomes moot when interim relief or events 9 have deprived the court of the ability to redress the party’s injuries.” United States v. Alder 10 Creek Water Co., 823 F.2d 343, 345 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). So, a case is moot 11 “when a plaintiff has received all of the relief he requested in his complaint.” Von Staich 12 v. Hamlet, No. 04-16011, 2007 WL 3001726, at *2 (9th Cir. Oct. 16, 2007). As Defendants 13 are asserting mootness, they “bear[] a ‘heavy burden of establishing that there is no 14 effective relief remaining for the court to provide.” United States v. Strong, 489 F.3d 1055, 15 1059 (9th Cir. 2007). 16 The Court agrees with Defendants that this case is moot. In their Complaint, 17 Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ I-485 Petitions. See 18 Compl. at 2. Plaintiffs did not request any further relief. See generally Compl. And on 19 June 14, 2023, USCIS did adjudicate—and grant—Plaintiffs’ Petitions. See id. at 2; see 20 also ECF No. 3-1 at 2. Plaintiffs have thus received “all of the relief” they sought, 21 depriving this Court of the ability to redress any asserted injury. Because no live case or 22 controversy remains, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion and dismisses this action 23 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). 24 See, e.g., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969); NASD Disp. Resol., Inc. v. Jud. 25 Council of State of Cal., 488 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007). 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 CONCLUSION 2 In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 3 || (ECF No. 3) and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action. As this concludes 4 || the litigation in this matter, the Clerk of the Court SHALL CLOSE the file. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: September 13, 2023 tt 7 pen Janis L. Sammartino 3 United States District Judge
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28