In Balikian v. Ally Financial, Inc., 2012 WL 5518853 (C.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Wu catalogued the well document history of a FCRA plaintiff’s lawyer in the Central District for filing FCRA complaints.
Plaintiff’s counsel, Arshak Bartoumian, has a recent and well-documented history of failing to oppose pending motions, failing to appear at hearings, filing last-minute motions for leave to amend on the eve of hearings for motions to dismiss, and other conduct exhibiting a general lack of attention to properly prosecuting the scores of cookie-cutter complaints he files for his clients, such as Plaintiff’s Complaint here. Not surprisingly, Plaintiff has not opposed either motion here. In light of the lack of any opposition, the Court vacates the hearing date and grants the motions. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7–12 (“The 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.”); C .D. Cal. L.R. 7–15 (“The Court may dispense with oral argument on any motion except where an oral hearing is required by statute, the F.R.Civ.P. or these Local Rules.”). ¶ Both motions plainly sought dismissal of this case with prejudice. See Docket No. 9, at 20:16–20; Docket No. 11, at 3:3–4. Yet, Plaintiff chose not to oppose, thereby consenting to an order granting the motions and suggesting that he either cannot amend or that he does not care to amend. As such, the Court consider’s Plaintiff’s non-opposition to reflect his consent to having this matter dismissed without leave to amend, and with prejudice, at least as to Ally and AllianceOne. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7–12; see also Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 888–89 (9th Cir.2010) (“ ‘A plaintiff who makes a claim … in his complaint, but fails to raise the issue in response to a defendant’s motion to dismiss …, has effectively abandoned his claim ….‘ ”) (quoting Walsh v. Nev. Dep’t of Human Res., 471 F.3d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir.2006)). Plaintiff’s Complaint is therefore dis-missed, without leave to amend, as to Ally and AllianceOne. The Court also denies AllianceOne’s request for sanctions.