HUI v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Case No. 17cv776-CAB-RBB.

ROWENA HUI, Plaintiff, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

United States District Court, S.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1442
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Notice of Removal - Suit against Federal Officer
Nature of Suit: 865 Social Security: RSI Tax Suits
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Rowena Hui, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Social Security Administration, Defendant, represented by Kyle Hoffman , U S Attorneys Office.


ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. No. 2]

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO, District Judge.

On April 25, 2017, defendant Social Security Administration/United States of America filed a motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 2.] More than six weeks have passed, and plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2. requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing. Failure to comply with these rules "may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion." Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c. District courts have broad discretion to enact and apply local rules, including dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (affirming grant of an unopposed motion to dismiss under local rule by deeming a pro se litigant's failure to oppose as consent to granting the motion). Before dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, the district court "weigh[s] several factors: `(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.'" Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986)). That plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action does not excuse her failure to follow the rules of procedure that govern other litigants. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) ("Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.").

Here, defendant attached a proof of service to its motion, signaling that plaintiff was served at the address provided on the face of her complaint. [Doc. No. 2-2.] Moreover, plaintiff was provided adequate time to prepare a response. The notice of motion set a hearing for May 30, 2017, resulting in a response deadline for plaintiff of May 16, 2017, approximately three weeks after defendant's motion was filed on April 25, 2107. Almost one month has passed since then and still plaintiff has not filed an opposition. Thus, the Court finds that "the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation," "the court's need to manage its docket," and "the risk of prejudice to the defendant" all weigh in favor of granting the motion to dismiss. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. Accordingly, the majority of the Ghazali factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 2] is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

It is SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases