Opinion
No. CIV-03-2314-PHX-SRB.
July 27, 2004
ORDER
Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss on May 21, 2004, and served Plaintiffs by mail on that same date. On May 24, 2004, this Court issued an order advising Plaintiffs "that failure to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss by the deadline set forth in this Order will result in the Court deeming Defendant's Motion as being unopposed and consented to by the Plaintiffs." On June 10, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss extending the time to respond to June 23, 2004. This Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion on June 14, 2004 and extended the response date to June 23, 2004. As of this date, no responsive memorandum has been filed. Rule 1.10(i) provides in part "if the opposing party does not serve and file the required answering memorandum, . . . such noncompliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily." Pursuant to this rule and the notice provided to Plaintiffs in the May 24, 2004 order, the Court deems Plaintiffs failure to serve and file the required answering memorandum a consent to the granting of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 5-1).
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
____ Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.XX Decision by Court. This action came for consideration before the Court. The issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Court's order dated July 28, 2004, granting motion to dismiss case for lack of jurisdiction by defendant [5-1]; judgment is entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiffs. Plaintiffs to take nothing, and complaint and action are dismissed.