Holland v. McLean Communications, Inc. et al

Filing 11

///ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty. (gla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sheila Holland
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-291-LM

McLean Communications, Inc.,
The Nashua Telegraph;
Independent Publications, Inc.;
Network Publications, Inc.;
Sharron McCarthy; and Steven Pare

O R D E R
In a case that has been removed from the New Hampshire
Superior Court, Sheila Holland has sued six defendants in nine
counts, asserting claims arising from treatment she received
while she was employed by Network Publications as a sales
representative.

Before the court is defendants’ motion to

dismiss: (1) Holland’s federal and state claims for age
discrimination (Counts Eight and Nine); and (2) the claim she
asserts for an alleged violation of a provision in the New
Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules pertaining to the manner
in which employers are required to notify employees of changes
in wages and benefits (Count Four).

Defendants argue that they

are entitled to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because Counts Four, Eight,

and Nine fail to state claims upon which relief can be granted.
Holland’s objection to defendants’ motion to dismiss was due on
July 5, 2011.

See LR 7.1(b).

objection has been filed.

As of the date of this order, no

For that reason, defendants’ motion

to dismiss is granted.
Rule 7.1(b) of the Local Rules of the United States
District Court for the District of New Hampshire specifies the
amount of time parties have to respond to motions filed by their
opponents.

That rule further provides that “[t]he court shall

deem waived any objection not filed in accordance with this
rule.”

LR 7.1(b).

The First Circuit has held that when a

plaintiff fails to object to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a district
court may grant a motion to dismiss in reliance upon a “deemed
waived” provision in that court’s local rules.

See ITI

Holdings, Inc. v. Odom, 468 F.3d 17, 18-19 (1st Cir. 2006); cf.
NEPSK, Inc. v. Town of Houlton, 283 F.3d 1, 5-9 (1st Cir. 2002)
(affirming dismissal under Rule 12(c) based upon plaintiff’s
failure to timely object to defendant’s motion for judgment on
the pleadings in conjunction with local “deemed waived” rule).
Because this case is analogous to ITI Holdings in all relevant
respects, including the wording of the applicable local rules,
Holland’s failure to object to defendants’ motion to dismiss

2

entitles defendants to dismissal of Counts Four, Eight, and
Nine.

Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss, doc. no. 8,

is granted.
SO ORDERED.

__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge

August 22, 2011
cc:

Kenneth J. Barnes, Esq.
Christopher B. Kaczmarek, Esq.

3