The following excerpt is from Tuck v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., Case No.: 19-CV-1270-CAB-AHG (S.D. Cal. 2019):
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 on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
Page 4
sanctions.'" Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). Plaintiff has previously filed several notices of settlements, joint motions to dismiss, and oppositions to the previous motions to dismiss in this case. [Doc. Nos. 43, 44, 53.] Plaintiff also jointly filed motions to dismiss other defendants in this case after the pending motion to dismiss was filed by PRA. [Doc. Nos. 72, 73.]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.