Opinion
Case No. C05-5367 RBL.
May 19, 2006
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Third-Party Defendant Ohio Casualty Co.'s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #25].
Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court rules as follows:
On November 29, 2005 the Court entered an Order granting defendant Roger Bright's motion to file a third-party complaint against Ohio Casualty Co. and directed Bright to electronically file his third-party complaint [Dkt. #19]. The Clerk's record reflects that Bright has failed to file the complaint. Ohio Casualty Co. now moves to dismiss the complaint that was never technically filed against it. Bright has not responded to this motion.
Local Rule CR7(b)(2) requires that a party who opposes the motion shall file a brief in opposition to the motion and that the failure "to file papers in opposition to a motion . . . may be considered by the court as an admission that the motion has merit." CR7(b)(2), Local Rules W.D. Wash. A review of the motion indicates that it does have merit and the simple fact that Bright did not file his third-party complaint after being granted permission to do so further indicates to the Court that the motion should be granted. It is therefore
ORDERED that Ohio Casualty Co.'s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #25] is GRANTED. Any and all claims by Roger Bright against Ohio Casualty Co. are hereby DISMISSED and Ohio Casualty Co. is DISMISSED as a party in this action.
The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing pro se.