Leon v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC

Filing 38

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 26 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. This case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/12/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 ARIEL LEON, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4 Plaintiff, 5 vs. 6 WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC, 7 Defendant. 8 Case No.: 2:16-cv-01623-GMN-GWF ORDER 9 Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 26), filed by Defendant 10 11 Wynn Las Vegas, LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiff Ariel Leon (“Plaintiff”)1 filed a Response, 12 (ECF No. 36), and Defendant filed a Reply, (ECF No. 37). For the reasons set forth herein, 13 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. 14 I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff initiated this action on July 12, 2016, alleging claims of race and national origin 15 16 discrimination, disability discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional 17 distress. (Compl., ECF No. 1). Plaintiff was initially represented by the law firm of Kang and 18 Associates, PLLC (“Kang”). (See id.). On January 5, 2017, Kang filed a Motion to Withdraw, 19 citing an irreparable disagreement with Plaintiff regarding the merits and direction of the case. 20 (See Mot. to Withdraw at 6, ECF No. 21). Anticipating delay, the parties stipulated to extend 21 the discovery deadlines by an additional 90 days. (Stipulation to Extend, ECF No. 22). On January 19, 2017, the Court granted the parties’ request for a discovery extension. 22 23 (Extension Order, ECF No. 23). Shortly thereafter, the Court granted Kang’s Motion to 24 25 In light of Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant, the Court has liberally construed his filings, holding them to standards less stringent than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 1 Page 1 of 4 1 Withdraw and advised Plaintiff that “if he intends to retain new counsel, he must do so 2 promptly.” (Withdrawal Order 1:21–22, ECF No. 25). Additionally, the Court cautioned 3 Plaintiff that “[i]n the event Plaintiff chooses to proceed pro se, he is advised that he has a duty 4 to comply with all applicable rules of civil procedure and court orders.” (Id. 1:22–23). On 5 April 11, 2017, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. (See Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 6 26). 7 II. 8 9 DISCUSSION Defendant argues for dismissal based on Plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery requests and failure to prosecute the case. (See Mot. to Dismiss 2:3–18). Specifically, 10 Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to provide any responses to Defendant’s requests for 11 production of documents and interrogatory questions despite numerous extensions. (Id.). 12 Additionally, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff “was completely unprepared for his deposition” 13 and unfamiliar with his own Complaint. (Reply 4:11–14, ECF No. 37). Defendant also cites to 14 repeated and failed attempts to communicate with Plaintiff regarding discovery obligations and 15 scheduling matters. (See Exs. 4–6 to Mot. to Dismiss). According to Defendant, Plaintiff’s 16 conduct demonstrates a “lack of interest in complying with the applicable rules of civil 17 procedure and this Court’s Order.” (See Mot. to Dismiss 2:16–18). 18 On February 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. In 19 this response, however, Plaintiff entirely fails to address the issues raised in the underlying 20 motion. Under Local Rule 7–2(d), “[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and 21 authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.” 22 D. Nev. R. 7–2(d). As the Ninth Circuit has held, “[f]ailure to follow a district court's local 23 rules is a proper ground for dismissal.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995); see, 24 e.g., Roberts v. United States of America, 01–cv–1230–RLH–LRL, 2002 WL 1770930 (D. Nev. 25 Page 2 of 4 1 June 13, 2002). The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has consented to the dismissal of this 2 case. In addition to Plaintiff’s lack of opposition, Plaintiff’s failure to engage in the discovery 3 4 process and follow Court orders likewise warrants dismissal. In evaluating dismissal as a 5 sanction, district courts must weigh five factors: “(1) the public's interest in expeditious 6 resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to 7 defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic sanctions; and (5) the public policy 8 favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th 9 Cir. 2002). 10 Upon review of the record, the Court finds that four of the five factors favor dismissal. 11 First, “the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” 12 Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.1999). Second, the Court's need to 13 manage its docket is manifest. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. 14 Ireland, 2:07–cv–01541–RCJ–RJJ, 2009 WL 4280282 (D.Nev. Nov. 30, 2009). Third, 15 Plaintiff's failure to cooperate throughout the discovery process has unreasonably delayed the 16 resolution of this case, and such unreasonable delay “creates a presumption of injury to the 17 defense.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986). Fourth, the Court has 18 weighed less drastic sanctions and finds that, given Plaintiff’s minimal and noncompliant 19 participation in this case, any sanction short of dismissal would be ineffective. Lastly, while 20 the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits weighs against dismissal, the fact 21 that the other four factors strongly favor dismissal is dispositive in this instance. The Court 22 therefore grants dismissal without prejudice. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4 III. CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 26), is GRANTED. This case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case. 5 6 12 DATED this _____ day of March, 2018. 7 8 9 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 4 of 4

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?