Ferrell v. Stumpf et al
ORDER that Plaintiffs shall file with the Clerk of the Court and serve on opposing counsel a responsive memorandum to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss no later than July 26, 2010. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 6/24/10. (KSP)
Ferrell et al v. Stumpf et al
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Louis Howard Ferrell, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. John G Stumpf, et al., Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
No. CV 10-1231-PHX-MHM ORDER
On June 21, 2010, Defendants Jeremy T. Bergstrom and Miles, Bauer, Bergstrom &
17 Winters, LLP filed a Motion to Dismiss. Because the Plaintiffs are acting pro se in this 18 matter, the Court advises the Plaintiffs of the following: 19 I. 20 RULE 7.2(i) CAUTIONARY NOTICE LRCiv 7.2(i) states in relevant part: "[I]f the opposing party does not serve and file the
21 required answering memoranda . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the 22 denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily." See 23 D.Ariz. R. 1.10(i); see also Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652 (9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiffs 24 should take notice that failure to respond to the Defendants' Motion by the deadline set forth 25 in this Order will result in the Court deeming the Defendants' Motion as being unopposed and 26 consented to by the Plaintiffs. See Brydges, 18 F.3d at 652 (affirming the district court's 27 summary granting of a motion for summary judgment under Local Rule 7.2(i) when 28 non-moving party was given express warning of consequences of failing to respond).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
It is the Plaintiffs obligation to timely respond to all motions. The Defendants' Motion will be summarily granted if Plaintiffs fail to respond in accordance with the provisions of this Order. II. RULE 41 CAUTIONARY NOTICE The Plaintiffs should also take notice that if they fail to timely comply with every provision of this Order, or any other order of the Court entered in this matter, their Complaint and this action may also be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court), cert denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). Therefore, the Plaintiffs are warned that failure to strictly adhere to the provisions of this or any other Court Order will result in dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Rule 41. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file with the Clerk of the Court and serve on opposing counsel a responsive memorandum to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss no later than July 26, 2010. DATED this 24th day of June, 2010.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?