Sharda v. Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center, et al
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 27 defendant Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners' motion to dismiss be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/18/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
NAVNEET SHARDA, M.D.,
Case No. 2:16-CV-2233 JCM (GWF)
SUNRISE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL
CENTER, LLC, et al.,
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Presently before this court is defendant Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners’ motion
to dismiss. (ECF No. 27). Although this court granted a stipulation on December 23, 2016, for an
extension of time for plaintiff Navneet Sharda to respond to the motion, plaintiff submitted no
timely response. (ECF No. 34).
The local rules have the force of law. See United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 574–575
(1958). Under Local Rule 7-2(d), “[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities
in response to any motion . . . constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.” The Ninth
Circuit instructs that a district court must weigh several factors before granting a motion filed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 because a party failed to comply with a local rule:
“(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 o[n] their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46
F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986))
(discussing a Nevada local rule construing a failure to oppose a motion as effectively consenting
to the granting of that motion); see also Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1183 (9th Cir. 2003)
(indicating that Ghazali provides the applicable rule for evaluating a Rule 12 motion to dismiss in
light of a local rule authorizing dismissal).
This court finds that granting defendant’s motion to dismiss would protect the public’s
interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. This court also finds
that granting defendant’s motion to dismiss would permit the court to effectively manage its
docket. See id. Additionally, defendant would be prejudiced if the court did not rule on the present
motion because it would be forced to wait for plaintiff—who initiated this case—to resolve the
present action. See id.
This court acknowledges the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits.
See id. However, dismissal is appropriate in this circumstance because several months have
elapsed since the expiration of plaintiff’s response deadline, and plaintiff has yet to file an
opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. See (ECF No. 34).
Weighing the Henderson factors, this court finds that defendant’s motion to dismiss will
be granted pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d). See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant Nevada State
Board of Medical Examiners’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 27) be, and the same hereby is,
DATED July 18, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
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?