Opinion
CV-21-00846-PHX-SPL
10-06-2022
Wanda Elaine Smith-Jeter, Plaintiff, v. City of Scottsdale, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Honorable Steven P. Logan United States District Judge
Defendant Al Angelo Company filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on July 29, 2022 (Doc. 70), and Defendant City of Scottsdale filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on August 12, 2022 (Doc. 72), pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court issued warnings to Plaintiff, instructing her to respond (Docs. 71 & 73). Both warnings, however, were returned as undeliverable. (Docs. 74 & 75). On August 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Party's Change of Address. (Doc. 76). On September 19, 2022, the Court provided Plaintiff with additional time-until October 5, 2022-to file her responses because it appeared that Plaintiff did not receive the Court's prior warnings. (Doc. 77). The Court again warned Plaintiff that her failure to respond may in the Court's discretion be deemed as consent to the granting of Defendants' Motions, and that judgment may be entered dismissing the complaint and action with prejudice. (Id. (citing LRCiv 7.2(i); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651 (9th Cir. 1994)).
Plaintiff again failed to respond to Defendants' Motions. Pursuant to this Court's discretion under LRCiv 7.2(i), the Court deems Plaintiff's failure to respond as consent to the granting of Defendants' Motions. Defendants' Motions are granted and Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Al Angelo Company's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 70) is granted. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Al Angelo Company are dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant City of Scottsdale's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 72) is granted. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant City of Scottsdale are dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and dismiss this action in its entirety.