Kathy Morris v. Summerlin Hospital Medical Center LLC, et al

Filing 15

ORDER Granting 7 Joint Motion to Dismiss Parts of Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff's first, third, fourth, and sixth causes of action are Dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/15/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

KATHY MORRIS,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:14-CV-1834 JCM (PAL)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
SUMMERLIN HOSPITAL MEDICAL
CENTER, LLC, et al.,
Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is defendants Summerlin Hospital Medical Center, LLC

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

(“Summerlin LLC”), Summerlin Hospital Medical Center, Limited Partnership (“Summerlin
LP”), and Valley Health System, LLC’s (“Valley Health”) joint motion to dismiss parts of
plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. # 7). Plaintiff has not filed a response and the deadline to do so has
passed.
Plaintiff’s response to defendants’ joint motion to dismiss was originally due by
November 27, 2014. On November 25, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation allowing plaintiff
additional time, until December 5, 2014, to file a response. (Doc. # 12). The court granted this
stipulation, and allowed plaintiff until December 5, 2014 to respond. (Doc. # 13). Despite the
extension, plaintiff has still failed to file a response.
This case involves an employment dispute. Plaintiff Kathy Morris is currently employed
by defendant Summerlin LLC as a respiratory therapist. (See doc. # 7). Plaintiff commenced the
action in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada on October 7, 2014, setting
forth six claims for relief. (See id.). On November 3, 2014, defendant Summerlin LLC,
removed the action to this court. (Doc. # 1). Defendants Summerlin LP, and Valley Health

1

consented to and joined in the removal. Defendants now jointly move to dismiss four of

2

plaintiff’s claims for relief based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See id.).

3

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

4

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.

5

Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

6

“Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent’ with a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops

7

short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (citing Bell

8

Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 557). However, where there are well pled factual allegations, the court

9

should assume their veracity and determine if they give rise to relief. Id. at 1950.

10

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2, an opposing party must file points and authorities in response

11

to a motion and failure to file a timely response constitutes the party’s consent to the granting of

12

the motion and is proper grounds for dismissal. See LR IB 7-2(d); United States v. Warren, 601

13

F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). However, prior to dismissal, the district court is required to weigh

14

several factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s

15

need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy

16

favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.”

17

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

18

1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).
In light of plaintiff’s failure to respond and weighing the factors identified in Ghazali, the

19
20

court finds dismissal plaintiff’s first, third, fourth, and sixth causes of action appropriate.

21

Accordingly,

22

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants Summerlin

23

LLC, Summerlin LP, and Valley Health’s joint motion to dismiss parts of plaintiff’s complaint

24

(doc. # 7) be, and the same hereby, is GRANTED.

25

...

26

...

27

...

28

...

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s first, third, fourth, and sixth causes of action

2

(see doc. # 1) be dismissed without prejudice.

3

DATED December 15, 2014.

4
5

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-3-