Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00393/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00393-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

Eugenia Derden,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0393-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Defendant Maricopa County’s (“Defendant”) Motion to

Dismiss (Dkt. 4), Plaintiff Eugenia Derden’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion by Default on Assault (Dkt.

10), and Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion by Default on Assault (Dkt. 11).

A. Motion to Dismiss

On July 17, 2007, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss this case, arguing that Plaintiff

failed to effect service within the time limits set forth in Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure (“Federal Rules”). (Dkt. 4) Plaintiff filed an improper responsive motion (Dkt. 5),

after which the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss by Friday,

August 24, 2007. (Dkt. 8) The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to respond could be deemed

a consent to the granting of that Motion without further notice, and judgment entered dismissing

the Complaint and action with prejudice pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i). (Dkt. 8) See Brydges v.

Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).

Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss within the allotted time. 

The Court deems this failure as a consent to the granting of the Motion to Dismiss.

Case 2:07-cv-00393-SMM Document 12 Filed 09/19/07 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 -

B. Motion by Default on Assault and Motion to Strike

On September 11, 2007, Plaintiff filed a self-styled “Judgment by Default on Assault.”

On September 13, 2007, Defendant’s filed a motion to strike the same. In light of Plaintiff’s

failure to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, these motions are moot.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 4); 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiffs' request for

“Judgment by Default on Assault” (Dkt. 10);

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING AS MOOT Defendant’s Motion to

Strike (Dkt. 11);

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

DATED this 18th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00393-SMM Document 12 Filed 09/19/07 Page 2 of 2