Latham-Brown v. Trident Security Services Incorporated

Filing 10

ORDER, Plaintiff shall file an answering memorandum to Defendants' 8 MOTION to Dismiss by 12/10/10. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/29/10. (REW)

Download PDF
Latham-Brown v. Trident Security Services Incorporated Doc. 10 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 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Rodney R. Latham-Brown, Plaintiff, vs. Trident Security Services, Inc., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-10-1986-PHX-GMS ORDER On November 2, 2010, Defendant Trident Security Services Incorporated filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and A.R.S. 12541(5). (Doc. 8). Arizona Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(c) provides that an opposing party to a motion to dismiss "shall, unless otherwise ordered by the Court . . ., have fourteen (14) days after service" in a civil case within which to serve and file a responsive memorandum in opposition to the motion. Therefore, accounting for mailing time, Plaintiff's responsive memorandum was due no later than November 19, 2010. As of the date of this Order, however, Plaintiff neither has filed a response nor has requested to receive an extension of time. Under the Local Rules, Plaintiffs' failure to "serve and file the required answering memoranda . . . may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion [to dismiss]" and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily. Local R. Civ. P. 7.2(i). /// Dockets.Justia.com 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 THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file and serve an answering memorandum to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss before 5:00 p.m. on December 10, 2010. Should Plaintiff fail to comply, the Court may deem his failure to oppose the Motion as a waiver, and may dismiss the complaint. DATED this 29th day of November, 2010. -2-

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?