Righthaven LLC v. Newman

Filing 22

ORDER granting 19 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Defendant Garry Newman terminated. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/22/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limitedliability company, 2:10-CV-1762 JCM (PAL) 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 GARRY NEWMAN, et al,, 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 ORDER Presently before the court is defendant Garry Newman’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. #19). To date, the plaintiff has not filed a response. 18 Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(b), an opposing party’s failure to file a timely response to any 19 motion constitutes the party’s consent to the granting of the motion and is proper grounds for 20 dismissal. U.S. v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). However, prior to dismissal, the 21 district court is required to weigh several factors: “(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution 22 of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) 23 the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 24 sanctions.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 25 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge In light of the plaintiff’s failure to respond and weighing the factors identified in Ghazali, the court finds dismissal appropriate. 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant’s motion to 3 4 dismiss (doc. #19) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED without prejudice. DATED July 22, 2011. 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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 -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?