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).

Download PDF
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?