Sutton v. Jewell

Filing 28

ORDERED that defendant's # 10 Motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's # 1 complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 11/20/2015. (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

PAULA SUTTON

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

SALLY JEWEL, SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,

13
14

Defendant.

3:13-cv-0630-LRH-WGC
ORDER

15
Before the court is defendant Sally Jewel’s (“Jewel”) motion to dismiss. Doc. #10.1 Plaintiff

16
17

Paula Sutton (“Sutton”) did not file an opposition to the motion.

18

Plaintiff Sutton filed a complaint for Title VII discrimination against Jewel in late 2013.

19

See Doc. #1. Jewel moved to dismiss the action in July 2014. See Doc. #10. Sutton’s opposition to

20

the motion to dismiss was originally due on August 2, 2014, but the court granted Sutton several

21

extensions of time to file her opposition, ultimately giving her until October 23, 2015, to file any

22

opposition to the motion to dismiss. However, as of November 2, 2015, no opposition has been

23

filed.

24

While the failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any

25

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

26
1

Refers to the court’s docket entry number.

1

file an opposition, in and of itself, is an insufficient ground for dismissal. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46

2

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

3

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

4

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring

5

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

6

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

7

cases on the court’s docket is strong. Defendant Jewel has an interest in resolving this matter in a

8

timely manner. Further, there is a lack of prejudice to plaintiff because she has shown an

9

unwillingness to continue litigating this complaint for more than a year which weighs in favor of

10

granting the motion. Thus, although public policy favors a resolution on the merits, the court finds

11

that dismissal is warranted in light of these other considerations. Therefore, the court shall grant

12

defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismiss plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety.

13
14
15

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. #10) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. #1) is DISMISSED in its entirety.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

DATED this 20th day of November, 2015.

18
19

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2