# Sierra Brown v. UMG Recordings, Inc. > District Court, C.D. California · August 28, 2020 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10038865 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, C.D. California - **Decided:** August 28, 2020 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10038865 ## Opinion text O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California 10 11 SIERRA BROWN, Case № 2:20-cv-0598-ODW (SKx) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO v. DISMISS [42] 14 15 UMG RECORDINGS, INC., et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Before the Court is Defendants UMG Recordings, Inc., Interscope Geffen 19 A&M Records, Inc.,1 and Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp.’s (“Defendants”) 20 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Sierra Brown’s Complaint (“Motion”). (See Mot.) After 21 carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court 22 deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument on August 4, 2020. 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 24 On January 21, 2020, Brown initiated this action for copyright infringement 25 against numerous defendants. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Despite the Court granting 26 Brown several extensions of time to serve, all but the moving Defendants have been 27 1 Defendants note that Interscope Geffen A&M Records is an unincorporated division of UMG 28 Recordings, Inc., and has been erroneously sued here as “Interscope Geffen A&M Records, Inc.” (Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”) 1, ECF No. 42.) 1 dismissed as a result of Brown’s failure to timely complete service. (See ECF 2 Nos. 13, 34, 41, 46.) 3 Defendants move to dismiss Brown’s Complaint for failure to state a claim 4 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See Mot. 1, 5.) Defendants 5 noticed the Motion for August 10, 2020, which required Brown to file any opposition 6 no later than July 20, 2020. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. Because Brown is proceeding pro 7 se, Defendants expressly notified her of this deadline. (Notice of Mot. 1.) Defendants 8 also informed Brown that, under the Local Rules, “[t]he Court may deem [Brown’s] 9 failure to timely file opposition papers consent to the granting of Defendants’ 10 Motion.” (Notice of Mot. 1 (citing C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12).) However, to date, Brown 11 has filed no opposition. 12 Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file an opposition to a motion not 13 later than twenty-one days before the designated hearing date. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. A 14 party that does not file an opposition may be deemed to consent to the granting of the 15 motion. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12; see Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) 16 (upholding district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint based on failure to oppose 17 motion as required by local rules). Prior to dismissing an action pursuant to a local 18 rule, courts must weigh: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of cases, 19 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants, 20 (4) public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits, and (5) the availability of 21 less drastic measures. Id. at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 22 (9th Cir. 1986)). “Explicit findings with respect to these factors are not required.” 23 Ismail v. Cty. of Orange, SACV 10-00901 VBF (AJW), 2012 WL 12964893, at *1 24 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012) (citing Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424; accord, Malone v. U.S. 25 Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 129 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 819 (1988)). In 26 Ghazali, the Ninth Circuit found these factors satisfied where the plaintiff received 27 notice of the motion, had ample opportunity to respond, yet failed to do so. See 28 Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54. 1 Consideration of the Ghazali factors convinces the Court of the propriety of 2|| granting the Motion. Further, Brown received notice of the Motion and had ample 3 || opportunity to respond, yet has not filed any opposition or other response. Brown was aware of the Motion because Defendants met and conferred with her before filing it 5 || and she provided Defendants with additional information regarding her claims. (See 6 || Mot. 3-4 (noting Brown provided color-copy music transcriptions).) Brown also 7 || received notice of the Motion via the Court’s CM/ECF system, as she applied for and 8 | was granted permission to file electronically as a pro se filer at the inception of the 9 || case. (See ECF No. 8.) Additionally, Brown was formerly active in this litigation, 10 | having requested several extensions of time to serve defendants. (See “First” Ex Parte 11 | Appl. for Extension, ECF No. 9; “First” Mot. for Extension, ECF No. 32; “Third” 12 | Mot. for Extension, ECF No. 39.) Thus, she has demonstrated the ability to request an 13 || extension of time when she desires one, yet she has not done so in response to 14 || Defendants’ Motion. 15 Brown had notice of the Motion and was previously engaged in this matter, yet 16 || has not responded to Defendants’ Motion. Brown offers no excuse for failing to 17 || oppose. As such, the Court construes Brown’s failure to respond to Defendants’ 18 | Motion as consent to the Court granting it. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12 and Ghazali, 19 | the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSES Brown’s 20 | Complaint. (ECF No. 42.) 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 August 28, 2020 25 wus 06 llisi 7 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II 08 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10038865. Public record. Not legal advice.