From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Righthaven LLC v. No Quarter

United States District Court, D. Nevada
May 17, 2011
2:10-CV-1022 JCM (GWF) (D. Nev. May. 17, 2011)

Opinion

2:10-CV-1022 JCM (GWF).

May 17, 2011


ORDER


Presently before the court is defendant's motion to set aside default for failure to properly execute service (doc. #16) and motion to dismiss (doc. #18). This court granted the parties' stipulation extending plaintiff's time to respond to each motion to April 29, 2011. (Doc. #37). To date, plaintiff has failed to respond to either motion.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(b), an opposing party's failure to file a timely response to any motion constitutes the party's consent to the granting of the motion and is proper grounds for dismissal. U.S. v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). However, prior to dismissal, the district court is required to weigh several factors: "(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions." Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995).

In light of the plaintiff's failure to respond and weighing the factors identified in Ghazali, the court finds dismissal appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant's motion to set aside default (doc. #16) is GRANTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. #18) is hereby GRANTED without prejudice.


Summaries of

Righthaven LLC v. No Quarter

United States District Court, D. Nevada
May 17, 2011
2:10-CV-1022 JCM (GWF) (D. Nev. May. 17, 2011)
Case details for

Righthaven LLC v. No Quarter

Case Details

Full title:RIGHTHAVEN LLC, Plaintiff, v. NO QUARTER, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: May 17, 2011

Citations

2:10-CV-1022 JCM (GWF) (D. Nev. May. 17, 2011)