Free Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Frank Andrew Vasquez, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 Officer Scott Hazelett, 12 Defendant. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-00012-ROS Document 11 Filed 08/05/2005 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CV-03-0012-PHX-ROS (LOA) BRIEFING SCHEDULE

On July 27, 2005, Defendant Hazelett filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure of Plaintiff to prosecute his claim. Plaintiff is advised of the following provisions of Rule 7.2(i), LRCiv, Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, effective December 1, 2004: If a motion does not conform in all substantial respects with the requirements of this Local Rule, or if the opposing party does not serve and file the required answering memoranda, or if counsel for any party fails to appear at the time and place assigned for oral argument, such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily. It is plaintiff's obligation to timely respond to all motions. The failure of plaintiff to respond to defendants' motion to dismiss may in the discretion of the court be deemed a consent to the granting of that motion without further notice, and judgment may be entered dismissing the complaint and action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 7.2(i), LRCiv., Rules of Practice of the United States District Court

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

for the District of Arizona. See, Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651 (9th Cir. 1994). This means the case is over. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. That plaintiff shall have until September 13, 2005 within which to respond to defendant's Motion to Dismiss. 2. That defendant shall have until October 7, 2005 within which to file a reply. 3. That the motion shall be deemed to be ready for decision without oral argument on the day following the date set for filing the reply unless otherwise ordered by the Court. DATED this 5th day of August, 2005.

Case 2:03-cv-00012-ROS

Document 11

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 2 of 2