Walker River Paiute Tribe et al v. United States Departmet of Housing and Urban Development et al

Filing 16

ORDER GRANTING # 9 Motion to Dismiss. The initial complaint (Doc. # 1 ) is dismissed in its entirety and the clerk shall terminate P Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe as a plaintiff in this action. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 6/28/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

***
)
WALKER RIVER PAIUTE TRIBE; et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
)
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

3:08-cv-0627-LRH-VPC
ORDER

15
16

Before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe

17

(“Fallon Paiute”) for lack of standing. Doc. #9.1 Plaintiff Fallon Paiute did not file an opposition.

18

Fallon Paiute and plaintiff Walker River Paiute Tribe (“Walker Paiute”) filed a complaint

19

against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), along with

20

individual HUD directors, for unlawful deprivation of block grant housing under the Native

21

American Housing and Self-Determination Act (“NAHSDA”), 25 U.S.C. § 4101 et seq. Doc. #1.

22
23

Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, plaintiff Walker Paiute filed an amended
complaint.2 Doc. ##6, 7. Thereafter, defendants filed the present motion to dismiss plaintiff Fallon

24
25
26

1

2

Refers to the court’s docketing number.

The amended complaint was not brought by plaintiff Fallon Paiute. Therefore, the operative complaint
brought by Fallon Paiute is the initial complaint (Doc. #1).

1
2

Paiute and the initial complaint (Doc. #1) for lack of standing.3 Doc. #9.
While the failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any

3

motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion under LR 7-2(d), Fallon Paiute’s

4

failure to file an opposition, in and of itself, is an insufficient ground for dismissal. See Ghazali v.

5

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Before dismissing a case, a district court is required to

6

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

7

court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; 4) the public policy

8

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less dramatic sanctions. Id.

9

Here, these factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The need for the expeditious resolution of

10

cases on the court’s docket is strong. Defendants have an interest in resolving this matter in a

11

timely manner. Further, there is a lack of prejudice to the plaintiff because Fallon Paiute has shown

12

an unwillingness to continue litigating its complaint which weighs in favor of granting the motion

13

and the evidence provided to the court strongly supports a conclusion that Fallon Paiute was

14

without standing to initiate the underlying action. Therefore, the court finds that dismissal is

15

warranted in light of these considerations.

16
17

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. #9) is

18

GRANTED. The initial complaint (Doc. #1) is dismissed in its entirety and the clerk of court shall

19

terminate plaintiff Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe as a plaintiff in this action.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

DATED this 28th day of June, 2011.

22

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
3

25
26

Because Walker Paiute filed an amended complaint, the operative complaint for any motion to dismiss
brought against it would be the amended complaint (Doc. #7). Therefore, any order by this court addressing
the initial complaint does affect Walker Paiute’s status as a plaintiff in this action.

2