Arias-Martinez v. FCA US, LLC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIA ARIAS-MARTINEZ, Case No.: 3:25-cv-2937-CAB-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 14 FCA US, LLC, [Doc. No. 20] 15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is Defendant FCA US, LLC’s (“Defendant”) motion for judgment 18 on the pleadings. [Doc. No. 20.] After the deadline to file an opposition passed, the Court 19 ordered Plaintiff Maria Arias-Martinez (“Plaintiff”) to show cause as to why the motion 20 should not be granted. [Doc. No. 21.] The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to respond 21 by August 5, 2026 may constitute consent to the granting of the motion pursuant to Local 22 Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). [Id.] Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s order to show cause. 23 District courts have broad discretion to enact and apply local rules, including 24 dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 25 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an unopposed motion to dismiss under local 26 rule by deeming litigant’s failure to oppose as consent to granting the motion). Indeed, the 27 Ninth Circuit has repeatedly upheld district court decisions granting motions based on local 28 rules concerning a non-moving party’s failure to oppose the motion. See Blackwell v. Wells | || Fargo Bank, 834 F. App’x 436, 436 (9th Cir. 2021); Patel v. City of Los Angeles, 791 F. 2 || App’x 688, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2020); Jrvin v. Madrid, 749 F. App’x 546, 547 (9th Cir. 2019). 3 ||Before dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, the district court 4 || “‘weigh[s] several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 5 || (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the 6 || public policy favoring disposition of cases o[n] their merits; and (5) the availability of less 7 || drastic sanctions.’” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 8 |} 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). 9 Here, “the Ghazali factors support granting the motion based on the lack of 10 |;}opposition because Plaintiff's failure to oppose the motion indicates that Plaintiff has 11 ||abandoned this lawsuit and consents to its dismissal. Indeed, that Plaintiff previously 12 ||submitted other filings in this case, and that [Plaintiff] appeared at the Early Neutral 13 || Evaluation conference . . . leads the Court to assume that Plaintiff's lack of opposition is 14 ||intentional.” Lover-El v. Kroger Food 4 Less, No. 24-CV-377-CAB-DEB, 2024 WL 15 |[3225569 (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2024), appeal dismissed, No. 24-4007, 2024 WL 5277366 16 || (9th Cir. Oct. 23, 2024). Further, the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, 17 || the court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to Defendant by further delays 18 |/in this litigation, and the lack of appropriate less drastic sanctions all support dismissal. 19 || Moreover, upon review of the motion and of the record, Defendant’s motion appears to be 20 || meritorious. 21 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The 22 ||complaint is therefore DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. No 23 || further filings will be accepted. 24 It is SO ORDERED. 25 ||Dated: August 21, 2026 € 26 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 27 United States District Judge 28