Rambod Sotoodeh, et al. v. City of South El-Monte, California, a Municipal Corporation, et al.

There is wide federal circuit split on whether district courts have the legal authority to grant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions solely for lack of a reply pursuant to local rules requiring responses to motions. The majority of circuits hold that district courts must always consider the merits of unopposed Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. The First and D.C. Circuits allow district courts to grant such motions pursuant to local rules in certain circumstances. The majority in this case held that Central District of California Local Rule 7-12 does not conflict with Rule 12(b)(6), and the district court could dismiss Petitioners’ complaint with prejudice pursuant to the local rule for failure to file a required brief as consent to the granting of the motion. The concurrence held that generally courts must consider the merits of an unopposed Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, but that is only when the basis for dismissal is solely because the motion is unopposed, which it held was not the case here. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 83(a)(1) requires local rules to “be consistent with – but not duplicate – federal statutes and rules.”. “All federal courts are in agreement that the burden is on the moving party to prove that no legally cognizable claim for relief exists The question presented is: Whether Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 83(a)(1) require a district court to consider the merits of an unopposed Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss even when a local rule authorizes otherwise?