Free Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 La Paz County, et al. 13 14 15 16 On December 30, 2005, Defendant La Paz County filed a Motion for Summary Defendants. vs. James W. Field and Susan F. Field, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 03-2214-PHX-SRB ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

17 Judgment and Defendants APS, Doug McDonald and Donald Wilson filed a Motion for 18 Judgment on the Pleadings/Motion for Summary Judgment. Because the Plaintiffs are acting 19 pro se in this matter, the Court advises the Plaintiffs of the following: 20 I. 21 RULE 7.2(i) CAUTIONARY NOTICE LRCiv 7.2(i) states in relevant part: "[I]f the opposing party does not serve and file the

22 required answering memoranda . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the 23 denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily." See 24 D.Ariz. R. 1.10(i); see also Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652 (9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiffs 25 should take notice that failure to respond to the Defendants Motions by the deadline set forth 26 in this Order will result in the Court deeming the Defendants Motions as being unopposed and 27 consented to by the Plaintiffs. See Brydges, 18 F.3d at 652 (affirming the district court's 28
Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 125 Filed 01/10/2006 Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

summary granting of a motion for summary judgment under Local Rule 7.2(i) when non-moving party was given express warning of consequences of failing to respond). It is the Plaintiffs obligation to timely respond to all motions. The Defendants Motions will be summarily granted if Plaintiffs fail to respond in accordance with the provisions of this Order. II. RULE 41 CAUTIONARY NOTICE The Plaintiffs should also take notice that if they fail to timely comply with every provision of this Order, or any other order of the Court entered in this matter, their Complaint and this action may also be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court), cert denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). Therefore, the Plaintiffs are warned that failure to strictly adhere to the provisions of this or any other Court Order will result in dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Rule 41. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file with the Clerk of the Court and serve on opposing counsel a responsive memorandum to Defendant La Paz County's Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants APS, Doug McDonald and Donald Wilson's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings/Motion for Summary Judgment no later than February 2, 2006.

DATED this 9th day of January, 2006.

-2Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 125 Filed 01/10/2006 Page 2 of 2