Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00384/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00384-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Robert Plutt, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Safeway, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-0384-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for securit y for costs filed on

November 2, 2005. Doc. #23. Defendant requests that the Court enter an order requiring

Plaintiff to post security for the cost that Safeway can reasonably expect to incur in

defending this action. Id. Defendant cites LRCiv 54.1(c), which provides that the Court

may issue an order for security for costs “[i]n every action in which the plaintiff was not

a resident of t he Dist rict of Arizona at the time the suit was brought, or having been so,

afterwards removed from t his Dist rict . . . .” Since commencing this action, Plaintiff has

relocated to Colorado. Doc. #23.

 To date, Plaintiff has taken two depositions and retained an expert witness. Id.

Defendant seeks security for the cost to depose Plaintiff’s expert witness, retain their own

opposing expert, and depose one or two of Plaint iff’s other witnesses. Id. They estimate

approximately $4,000 in taxable costs. Id. 

Case 2:05-cv-00384-DGC Document 28 Filed 01/11/06 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 -

Plaintiff has not responded t o Defendant’s motion. Pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i), the

Court may deem Plaintiffs’ failure to respond as a consent to the granting of the

Defendant’s motion. See Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652 (9t h Cir. 1994) (holding that

Ariz ona district court did not err in summarily granting defendants’ motion for summary

judgment pursuant to former Local Rule 11(i) where pro se plaintiff failed to respond to

motion after district court had warned p laintiff that it would deem his failure to respond a

consent to granting of motion); United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 472-74 (9th Cir. 1979)

(holding that Arizona district court did not err in summarily dismissing indictments

pursuant to local rule where government failed to respond to motions to dismiss

indictments); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that district court

did not abuse its discretion in summarily granting defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant

t o local rule where pro se plaintiff had time to respond to motion but failed to do so and,

citing Warren, stating t hat “[f]ailure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper

ground for dismissal”); United States v. $22,474 in U.S. Currency, 55 F. Supp. 2d 1007,

1011 (D. Ariz. 1999) (citing former Rule 1.10(i) and st at ing that failure to comply with Local

Rules “would be grounds upon which to summarily grant the Government ’s motion to

dismiss”).

Pursuant to LRCiv 54.1(c) and 7.2(i), the Court will grant Defendant’s motion for

security for costs in the amount of $4,000.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for Security for Costs (Doc.

#23) is granted. On or before January 31, 2006, Plaintiff shall post security for costs in the

amount of $4,000.

DATED this 11th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00384-DGC Document 28 Filed 01/11/06 Page 2 of 2