Gaines v. Lee et al
Filing
29
ORDER Granting 21 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/20/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
11
ANGELA GAINS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
JESSICA LEE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
/
2:11-cv-00575-JCM-LRL
ORDER
16
17
Presently before the court is defendants Lea Baker, Joel Farina, Jessica Lee, and Rick Rose’s
18
motion to dismiss plaintiff Angela Gaines’s complaint. (Doc. #21). Ms. Gaines has failed to file a
19
response.
20
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(b), an opposing party’s failure to file a timely response to any motion
21
constitutes the party’s consent to the granting of the motion and is proper grounds for dismissal. U.S.
22
v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). However, prior to dismissal, the district court is required
23
to weigh several factors: “(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's
24
need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
25
disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Ghazali v. Moran,
26
46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).
1
2
In light of the plaintiff’s failure to respond and weighing the factors identified in Ghazali, the
court finds dismissal appropriate.
3
Accordingly,
4
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants’ motion to dismiss
5
6
(doc. #21) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
DATED October 20, 2011.
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?