Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

J&J Sports Productions, Inc v. Enrique F. Contreras and Ana M. Contreras Aka Ana M. Paz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO


September 13, 2012

J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
ENRIQUE F. CONTRERAS AND ANA M. CONTRERAS AKA ANA M. PAZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ALTO EGOS OF ASSUMED BUSINESS ENTITY GIROS EL GALLO, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: B. Lynn Winmill Chief JudgeUnited States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Ana M. Contreras's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 5).

J&J Sports Productions, Inc. brought this action against Ana M. Contreras and her husband, Enrique F. Contreras, alleging three claims: (1) a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 605 et seq.; (2) a violation of the Cable and Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 47 U.S.C. § 553 et seq.; and (3) a claim for conversion. J&J's claims stem from a telecast boxing match that aired in the restaurant Ana and Enrique manage. Ana maintains that she did not engage in any of the allegedly wrongful conduct, and therefore J&J fails to state a claim against her. J&J did not file a response opposing the Motion.

Under Local Rule 7(e)(1), "if an adverse party fails to timely file any response documents required to be filed under this rule, such failure may be deemed to constitute a consent to.the granting of said motion or other application." As noted, J&J failed to oppose Ana's motion to dismiss by the deadline established in the Local Rules. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 7(e)(1), the Court finds good cause for granting the defendants' unopposed motion to dismiss. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53--54 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (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); Holt v. I.R.S., 231 Fed. Appx. 557, -------- 1 (9th Cir.2007) (same; and rejecting pro se plaintiff's contention that the district court should have warned her of the consequences of failing to file an opposition) .

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that Ana M. Contreras's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 5)is GRANTED.

20120913

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.