Miller et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Filing 12

ORDER that defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.s motion for judgment on the pleadings 9 is GRANTED. The case is hereby dismissed. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/29/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

Miller et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Doc. 12

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge

[JOSHUA A. MILLER], ELY J ADES, ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, Plaintiff, v. CHASE and DOES 1-20, Defendants.

2:10-CV-1645 JCM (LRL)

ORDER Presently before the court is defendant JP Morgan's motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. #9). Also before the court is defendant's motion to stay discovery and all other proceedings pending resolution of the motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. #10). Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(b), an opposing party's failure to file a timely response to any motion constitutes the party's consent to the granting of the motion and is proper grounds for dismissal. U.S. v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). However, prior to dismissal, the district court is required to weigh several factors: "(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions." Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). A review of the docket indicates that as of December 23, 2010, the plaintiff has failed to respond to defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Weighing the factors identified in

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ghazali, the court finds dismissal is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings (doc. #9) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is hereby dismissed. DATED December 29, 2010.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge

-2-