Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02712/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02712-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rebecca Jean Burt
Plaintiff
Goodwill Industries of Central Arizona
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

Rebecca Jean Burt, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Goodwill Industries of Central Arizona, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-12-02712-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendant Goodwill of Central Arizona’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment. (Doc. 45). Plaintiff, however, has not responded to the Motion, 

despite this Court’s sua sponte order extending her time to respond and warning that a 

failure to respond would result in a dismissal on the merits. (Doc. 48 at 2). For the 

following reasons, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice, pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, 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. 

Case 2:12-cv-02712-JAT Document 49 Filed 12/18/14 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

 Next week marks the two-year anniversary of the filing of the Complaint in this 

case. Plaintiff has filed general motions to extend time, has failed to appear at her own 

deposition, and has requested a substitution of the judge. Yet, she has not seen fit to 

respond to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, despite the Court giving her an 

unrequested extension of time to do so “out of an abundance of caution.” (Doc. 48 at 2). 

The Court has also ordered Plaintiff to compensate Defendant for the costs it incurred for 

her failure to appear at her deposition. (Doc. 39). Thus, the Court has already pursued—

unsuccessfully—less drastic measures in its effort to allow this case to go forward. 

Despite these efforts, Plaintiff has ignored the Court’s order to respond to Defendant’s 

Motion. The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need 

to manage its docket therefore weigh in favor of dismissing this case on the merits under 

Rule 41(b). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED dismissing this case with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied as moot. 

 Dated this 18th day of December, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-02712-JAT Document 49 Filed 12/18/14 Page 2 of 2