Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05462/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05462-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ewa Adamek,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Herman Chanen, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-05462-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

Of the four Defendants named in this action, two have been dismissed for failure 

to serve,1and two have filed motions to dismiss to which pro se Plaintiff Ewa Adamek 

has filed no response. Defendant Herman Chanen filed a motion to dismiss and compel 

arbitration on April 27, 2020 (Doc. 15), and Steven Chanen filed a motion to dismiss for 

failure to state a claim on May 1, 2020 (Doc. 19), such that both response deadlines have 

passed.

LRCiv 7.2(i) provides that if a party opposing a motion “does not serve and file 

the required answering memorandum, . . . 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.”

“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground 

for dismissal.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995); see also Wystrach v. 

Ciachurski, 267 F. App’x 606, 608 (9th Cir. 2008) (upholding district court’s decision to 

1 Kathy Barto and John Dryer were terminated pursuant to the Court’s February 4, 

2020 preliminary order (Doc. 10) on May 11, 2020. (Doc. 20.)

Case 2:19-cv-05462-DWL Document 21 Filed 06/08/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

apply LRCiv 7.2(i) and grant summarily a motion to dismiss because plaintiffs failed to 

timely respond). “Before dismissing the action, 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 [on] their merits; and (5) the availability of 

less drastic sanctions.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. “The sub-parts of the fifth factor are 

whether the court has considered lesser sanctions, whether it tried them, and whether it 

warned the recalcitrant party about the possibility of case-dispositive sanctions.” 

Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th 

Cir. 2007). Dismissal is proper where “at least four factors support dismissal, or where at 

least three factors strongly support dismissal.” Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 

983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, “[t]his ‘test’ is 

not mechanical. It provides the district court with a way to think about what to do, not a 

set of conditions precedent . . . or a script that the district court must follow.” Conn. Gen. 

Life, 482 F.3d at 1096.

Regarding the first factor, “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation always favors dismissal” and can “strongly” support dismissal. Yourish, 191 

F.3d at 990. 

Regarding the second and third factor, Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the two

pending motions to dismiss has not yet consumed much of the Court’s time or created 

lengthy delay in this action or extra work for Defendants. Cf. Wystrach, 267 F. App’x at 

608; Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding this factor

weighed in favor of dismissal where plaintiff’s noncompliance “consumed some of the 

court’s time that could have been devoted to other cases on the docket”). 

The fourth factor weighs against summary dismissal. “Because public policy 

favors disposition of cases on their merits, this factor weighs against dismissal.” 

Wystrach, 267 F. App’x at 608. 

The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic sanctions could 

Case 2:19-cv-05462-DWL Document 21 Filed 06/08/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

be appropriate, whether it has already tried them, and whether the noncompliant party has 

been warned that the case could be dismissed for failure to comply. Conn. Gen. Life, 482 

F.3d at 1096. This Order will serve as a warning.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s failure to respond does not merit summary 

dismissal at this time. However, the Court will order Plaintiff to respond to the pending 

motions to dismiss within 14 days of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to respond to the 

pending motions, the action will be dismissed without prejudice, which would be the only 

less drastic sanction appropriate under those circumstances. See, e.g., Fader v. City of 

Phoenix, 2013 WL 5446676, *2–3 (D. Ariz. 2013) (“[D]ismissal without prejudice is the 

only acceptable less drastic sanction in this case.”).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall respond to the pending motions to dismiss 

within 14 days of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to respond to the pending 

motions to dismiss within 14 days of this Order, the Clerk of Court shall dismiss the 

action without prejudice, and without further notice.

Dated this 8th day of June, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-05462-DWL Document 21 Filed 06/08/20 Page 3 of 3