Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. Lang
Filing
50
***DISREGARD, ORDER WAS E-FILED IN THE INCORRECT CASE NO.*** ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DISMISSING FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; and DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' 46 MOTION TO DISMISS. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2015) Modified on 1/21/2015 (ndr, COURT STAFF).
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
MARIE E. HORN,
5
No. C 14-0909 CW
Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING
FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE; and
DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANTS' MOTION
TO DISMISS (Docket
No. 36)
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
v.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN RETIREMENT
PLAN B and NORTHROP GRUMMAN
BENEFIT PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE,
Defendants.
11
12
13
________________________________/
Plaintiff Marie E. Horn brings this Employee Retirement
14
Income Security Act (ERISA) claim against Defendants Northrop
15
Grumman Retirement Plan B and the Northrop Grumman Benefit Plan
16
Administrative Committee (collectively, Defendants).
17
move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon
18
which relief may be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
19
Procedure 12(b)(6).
20
21
Defendants
BACKGROUND
This Court granted Defendants' prior motion to dismiss, and
22
granted Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint.
23
No. 25).
24
2014.
25
and the Court granted, an extension of time for Defendants to file
26
a renewed motion to dismiss.
27
No. 35).
28
Order (Docket
Plaintiff filed her amended complaint on November 18,
(Docket No. 31).
Subsequently, the parties stipulated to,
Stip. (Docket No. 34); Order (Docket
1
Defendants made their renewed motion to dismiss on December
2
19, 2014.
3
that Plaintiff's response was due on January 2, 2015; however, as
4
of this writing, Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the renewed
5
motion to dismiss.
(Docket No. 36).
6
7
The stipulated deadlines provided
DISCUSSION
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court
8
may dismiss a case if "the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to
9
comply with these rules or a court order."
See also Hells Canyon
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir.
11
2005) ("courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least
12
under certain circumstances").
13
On November 28, 2014, Plaintiff entered a stipulation by
14
which she agreed that her response to any renewed motion to
15
dismiss would be due on January 2, 2015.
16
Court issued an Order granting the Stipulation.
17
renewed their motion to dismiss; however, although it is more than
18
two weeks after her deadline to respond, Plaintiff has filed no
19
response to the motion.
20
Court hereby dismisses Plaintiff's amended complaint for failure
21
to prosecute and for failure to comply with a court order.
22
Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is
23
denied as moot.
24
On December 1, 2014, the
Defendants timely
Therefore, pursuant to Rule 41(b), the
Rule 41 also provides, "Unless the dismissal order states
25
otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) . . . operates
26
as an adjudication on the merits."
27
favors disposition of cases on their merits, see, e.g., Dahl v.
28
2
Here, because public policy
1
City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 366 (9th Cir. 1996), the
2
dismissal shall not operate as an adjudication on the merits.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
7
Dated:
January 21, 2015
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?