Page 1
Ninth Circuit: Judge May Dismiss Action Based on Failure to File Court-Ordered Opposition to Motion
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the granting of a motion to dismiss an action with prejudice, without considering the merits, based on the plaintiffs’ disregard of an order to file opposition.
Rambod Sotoodeh, his wife, Stella Sotoodeh, and their business, 88 Sweet, Inc., on Aug. 21, 2023, sued the City of South El-Monte and two its officials for entering “secured areas” of their property without consent and without a warrant. District Court Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the Central District of California on May 9, 2024, declared:
“The Court ordered Plaintiffs lo file an opposition by May 6, 2024, and warned that failure to do so may result in the Court finding that Plaintiffs consented to the granting of the Motion to Dismiss….That deadline has passed, and Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition or made any other relevant filings.
“The Court ORDERS that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss…is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ first and second claims for relief (all of the claims Plaintiffs brought) are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.”
Frimpong acted pursuant to Local Rule 7-12 which provides that, subject to an exception that was not applicable, “[t]he failure to file any required document, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion….”
The plaintiffs’ appeal from that order came before a panel composed of Ninth Circuit Judges Ryan D. Nelson, Kenneth K. Lee, and Jennifer Sung. A memorandum opinion, filed Thursday, says:
“The district court did not discuss the factors that we require courts to consider before dismissing a suit under local rules: the interests in resolving litigation quickly and on the merits, the need to manage a docket, the risk of prejudice, and the availability of less drastic sanctions….Even so, our precedent does not require district courts to discuss those factors expressly, and we may weigh them in the first instance….
“Weighing those factors, three favor dismissal. Granting a motion to dismiss when a party fails to file a court-ordered response helps the court manage its docket and resolve litigation promptly….And because the district court gave the Sotoodehs extra time to file an opposition and warned that it would dismiss their suit if they failed to comply, the availability of less drastic sanctions also supports dismissal….With these three factors favoring dismissal, the district court did not commit a “clear error of judgment” in dismissing the Sotoodehs’ suit.”
The plaintiffs argued on appeal that Local Rule 7-12 is invalid because it conflicts with the statute under which the motion to dismiss was made, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure §12(b)(6) which says that a complaint is infirm if there is a “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” They contended that the Sotoudeh’s “majority of circuits hold that district courts must always consider the merits of unopposed Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss” and that the Ninth Circuit has yet to address the matter.
Citing the 1995 Ninth Circuit decision in Ghazali v. Moran, the judges responded:
“Our precedent indicates otherwise.”
The court in Ghazali declared that “[f]ailure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”
Thursday’s opinion adds:
“After all, the Federal Rules allow courts to dismiss lawsuits when plaintiffs disregard court orders.”
It pointed to Rule 41(b) which says that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to…comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action….”
In a concurring opinion, Nelson cautioned:
“[W]hen a plaintiff defies a court order to oppose a motion to dismiss, the district court may grant the unopposed motion without considering its merits. But such dismissals should be rare, and the court must apply the Rule 41(b) analysis. Otherwise, the court must adjudicate the unopposed motion on the merits.”
The case is Sotoodeh v. South El-Monte, 24-3848.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company