Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00909/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00909-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIE E. HORN,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTHROP GRUMMAN RETIREMENT 

PLAN B and NORTHROP GRUMMAN 

BENEFIT PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE 

COMMITTEE,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 14-0909 CW

ORDER DISMISSING 

FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE; and 

DENYING AS MOOT 

DEFENDANTS' MOTION 

TO DISMISS (Docket 

No. 36)

Plaintiff Marie E. Horn brings this Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act (ERISA) claim against Defendants Northrop 

Grumman Retirement Plan B and the Northrop Grumman Benefit Plan 

Administrative Committee (collectively, Defendants). Defendants 

move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6).

BACKGROUND

This Court granted Defendants' prior motion to dismiss, and 

granted Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. Order (Docket 

No. 25). Plaintiff filed her amended complaint on November 18, 

2014. (Docket No. 31). Subsequently, the parties stipulated to, 

and the Court granted, an extension of time for Defendants to file 

a renewed motion to dismiss. Stip. (Docket No. 34); Order (Docket 

No. 35).

Case 4:14-cv-00909-CW Document 50 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Defendants made their renewed motion to dismiss on December 

19, 2014. (Docket No. 36). The stipulated deadlines provided 

that Plaintiff's response was due on January 2, 2015; however, as 

of this writing, Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the renewed 

motion to dismiss.

DISCUSSION

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court 

may dismiss a case if "the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to 

comply with these rules or a court order." See also Hells Canyon 

Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 

2005) ("courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least 

under certain circumstances").

On November 28, 2014, Plaintiff entered a stipulation by 

which she agreed that her response to any renewed motion to 

dismiss would be due on January 2, 2015. On December 1, 2014, the 

Court issued an Order granting the Stipulation. Defendants timely 

renewed their motion to dismiss; however, although it is more than 

two weeks after her deadline to respond, Plaintiff has filed no 

response to the motion. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 41(b), the 

Court hereby dismisses Plaintiff's amended complaint for failure 

to prosecute and for failure to comply with a court order. 

Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is 

denied as moot.

Rule 41 also provides, "Unless the dismissal order states 

otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) . . . operates 

as an adjudication on the merits." Here, because public policy 

favors disposition of cases on their merits, see, e.g., Dahl v. 

Case 4:14-cv-00909-CW Document 50 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

3

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

City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 366 (9th Cir. 1996), the 

dismissal shall not operate as an adjudication on the merits.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 21, 2015 CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-00909-CW Document 50 Filed 01/21/15 Page 3 of 3