Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01738/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01738-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - 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

Walter Thomas Sowell, Jr.

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1738-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court are defendant’s motion to dismiss, defendant’s motion for

summary adjudication of its motion to dismiss, defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s late

response to the motion to dismiss, and defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of its

motion to strike. Plaintiff has filed a late response to the motion to dismiss and a late

response to the motion to strike.

Basically, defendant seeks to have its motion to dismiss granted as a sanction for

plaintiff’s failure to respond to the motion; first, by seeking summary adjudication, and then

by seeking to strike the late response and returning to summary adjudication once the

response is stricken. “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 [party seeking dismissal]; (4) the

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less

Case 2:07-cv-01738-JAT Document 15 Filed 04/21/08 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

- 2 -

drastic sanctions.’” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Henderson

v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Turning to the first motion for summary adjudication, the Court will consider the

factors for summary dismissal. One, the response was only a month late, so it did not

significantly delay the case. Two, the response was only a month late, so it did not

significantly prevent the Court from managing its docket. Three, defendant has not alleged

prejudice. Four, public policy favors considering the late response and the merits of the

motion. And, five, less drastic sanctions are available.

Having weighed these factors, the Court will not grant summary adjudication.

Further, because the Court will not grant summary adjudication, the Court will not grant the

motion to strike (either on the merits, or summarily) because to grant such motion would

return the Court to summary adjudication. Therefore, the Court will consider the late

response. However, the denial of the two motions for summary adjudication and the motion

to strike are without prejudice to defendant moving for a “less drastic sanction” as a result

of plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to any of the four pending motions.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary adjudication (Doc. #9),

motion to strike (Doc. #12) and motion for summary adjudication (Doc. #13) are all denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall file a reply to plaintiff’s response

to the motion to dismiss by May 9, 2008.

DATED this 18th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01738-JAT Document 15 Filed 04/21/08 Page 2 of 2