Theodore Kyriazis v. Beverly Hills Platinum Realty;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Kyriazis’s
request for oral argument is denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THEODORE KYRIAZIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BEVERLY HILLS PLATINUM
REALTY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-56203
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-08321-JFW-RZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Theodore Kyriazis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”) in connection with bankruptcy proceedings. We have
FILED
OCT 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-56203 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion both a
dismissal for failure to comply with the local rules, Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,
53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam), and the denial of leave to amend, Cervantes v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011). We may
affirm on any ground supported by the record. Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943,
965 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action
because Kyriazis failed to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss, despite notice
that the failure to do so could be deemed consent to the granting of the motion
under the local rules. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-9 (requiring the filing of an opposition or
statement of non-opposition to a motion to dismiss); C.D. Cal. R. 7-12 (providing
that the failure to file any required document may be deemed consent to the
granting or denial of the motion); Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54 (affirming dismissal for
failure to file opposition to motion to dismiss and noting that pro se litigants are
bound by the rules of procedure).
Denial of Kyriazis’s ex parte application for leave to file his second
amended complaint was not an abuse of the district court’s discretion because the
proposed amendments would have been futile. See Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d
981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009).

-- 2 of 3 --

11-56203 3
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kyriazis’s motion to
reconsider because Kyriazis failed to establish any basis for reconsideration. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63
(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --