Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00599/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00599-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
National Millworks
Defendant
Ryan Smith
Plaintiff
Robert Stiemke
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ryan Smith, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

National Millworks; et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-599-TUC-HCE (FRZ)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court is Defendant National Millworks' Motion to Dismiss. For

the following reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court grant

Defendant National Millworks' Motion. 

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, through counsel, filed this action in Santa Clara County Superior Court,

California. Plaintiff names as Defendants: (1) National Millworks; an Arizona corporation,

where Plaintiff was employed during the time relevant to his claims; and (2) Robert Stiemke,

a foreman employed by National Millworks during Plaintiff's employment with that

company. Plaintiff alleges the following five causes of action arising out of his employment

with National Millworks: false imprisonment; battery; sexual battery; sexual harassment; and

retaliation in violation of California statute. On July 11, 2006, Defendant National

Millworks removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District

Case 4:06-cv-00599-FRZ-HCE Document 13 Filed 04/30/07 Page 1 of 6
1

The Notice of Removal was filed by attorney Matthew Borden of Calvo and Clark,

LLP, located in San Francisco, California. The Notice of Removal indicates that Mr. Borden

and Calvo and Clark are: "Attorneys for Defendants ROBERT STEIMKE [sic]AND

NATIONAL MILLWORKS CORPORATION." (July 11, 2006 Notice of Removal) The

Notice of Removal reflects that Mr. Stiemke "has not been served"; is a citizen and resident

of Arizona; and that "[b]ecause Mr. Steimke [sic] has not been served, his joinder in the

removal is unnecessary. Salveson v. W. States Bankcard Ass'n, 731 F.2d 1423, 1429 (9th Cir.

1984) overruled by statute on other grounds ('Our circuit rule is that a party not served need

not be joined; the defendants summonsed may [sic] remove by themselves.')...." (Id. at pp.

2, 4)

- 2 -

of California based upon diversity of citizenship.1

 On October 24, 2006, Arne D. Wagner

and Matthew Borden of Calvo & Clark, LLP, entered a Notice of Appearance on behalf of

Defendant National Millworks Corporation. On November 15, 2006, the California District

Court transferred this action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1) "for the

convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice." (November 15, 2006

Order from the United States District Court for the Northen District of California) The

November 15, 2006 transfer order was filed by the Clerk of this Court on December 5, 2006.

On December 14, 2006, Defendant National Millworks filed a Motion for Substitution

of Counsel requesting that the Court allow Arizona counsel to replace Defendant National

Millworks' California counsel. On December 18, 2006, the Court granted Defendant

National Millworks' Motion for Substitution of Counsel, thus terminating representation of

National Millworks' by the Calvo and Clark law firm.

On December 18, 2006, Defendant National Millworks filed the pending Motion to

Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state

a claim. Defendant National Millworks asserts: "[i]t is National Millworks' understanding

that Plaintiffs [sic] have never served Mr. Stiemke with a summons or complaint (this office

does not represent Mr. Stiemke), but regardless of what happens with Stiemke individually,

Smith has failed to state claims for liability against National Millworks. This Court

Case 4:06-cv-00599-FRZ-HCE Document 13 Filed 04/30/07 Page 2 of 6
2

To date, the record does not reflect that Defendant Stiemke has been served. Plaintiff

initiated this action on March 27, 2006 in California state court. The Complaint named

National Millworks and Mr. Stiemke as defendants. Both parties were identified in the

"General Allegations" section of the Complaint as Defendants. (Complaint, p.2) On

November 1, 2006, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint identifying "NATIONAL

MILLWORKS" and "ROBERT STIEMKE" as defendants in the caption. However, Plaintiff

does not identify Mr. Stiemke as a Defendant in the "General Allegations" section of his

Amended Complaint. By separate order, the Court will require Plaintiff to show cause why

Defendant Stiemke should not be dismissed in light of Plaintiff 's failure to effect service

upon him within the time period set forth in Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

- 3 -

accordingly must dismiss the claims against National Millworks."2

 (Defendant National

Millworks' Motion to Dismiss, p.6) Defendant National Millworks sent the Motion to

Plaintiff's California counsel and Plaintiff. (Motion, p. 12) 

In December 2006, the Clerk of Court's Attorney Admissions Clerk contacted

Plaintiff's California counsel in writing to inform them of the pro hac vice admission

requirements of this Court. Additionally, through phone contact with Plaintiff's California

counsel, the Attorney Admissions Clerk advised counsel about the admission requirements

as well as the need for counsel to become admitted pro hac vice or to arrange for other

admitted counsel to appear. 

On February 1, 2007, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause for Plaintiff 's failure

to file an election form indicating either written consent to the exercise of the Magistrate

Judge or electing reassignment to a district judge. Additionally, the Court set a March 5,

2007 hearing before the Honorable John M. Roll, Chief United States District Judge.

(February 1, 2007 Order) Plaintiff was advised that if he made an election before March 1,

2007, the March 5, 2007 hearing would be vacated. (Id.) The February 1, 2007 Order was

mailed to Plaintiff 's California counsel. (February 1, 2007 docket entry) Plaintiff did not

file an election form and the matter came on for hearing before Chief Judge Roll on March

5, 2007. Neither Plaintiff nor counsel on his behalf appeared at the March 5, 2007 hearing.

(March 5, 2007 Order) Chief Judge Roll ordered that the case be reassigned to a district

Case 4:06-cv-00599-FRZ-HCE Document 13 Filed 04/30/07 Page 3 of 6
- 4 -

judge. (Id.) The action was reassigned to the Honorable Frank R. Zapata who referred this

matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. (Id; March 12, 2007 Order)

On March 16, 2007, Defendant National Millworks filed a Notice of Motion at Issue

requesting that the Court grant its Motion to Dismiss pursuant to L.R.Civ. 7.2(i), Rules of

Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Defendant National Millworks

sent its March 16, 2007 Notice of Motion at Issue to Plaintiff's California counsel and to

Plaintiff. (Defendant National Millwork's March 16, 2007 Notice of Motion at Issue, p. 3)

On April 9, 2007, Albie Jachimowicz, one of Plaintiff's California counsel, filed an

Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice pursuant to L.R.Civ. 85.1(b)(3), Rules of Practice

of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The Court granted that Motion on April

12, 2007 and notice of same was sent to Mr. Jachimowicz.

To date, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant National Millworks' December 18,

2006 Motion to Dismiss.

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to the Local Rules of Practice of this Court, if a party fails to respond to a

pending motion, the Court may deem such failure to respond as "consent to the...granting of

the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily." L.R.Civ. 7.2(i). The

response time for Defendant National Millworks' Motion to Dismiss has expired and Plaintiff

has not filed a Response. See L.R.Civ. 7.2(c) (setting forth ten day response time for motions

to dismiss other than a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). 

In the Ninth Circuit, “[f]ailure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground

for dismissal.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.), cert. den., 516 U.S. 838 (1995).

In Ghazali, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Nevada district court’s dismissal of an action

pursuant to a local rule similar to L.R.Civ. 7.2(i) where the pro se plaintiff failed to file an

opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Id. Whether to dismiss an action "pursuant

to its local rules" is within the trial court's discretion. Id. In exercising its discretion, the trial

court is “required to weigh several factors: '(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution

Case 4:06-cv-00599-FRZ-HCE Document 13 Filed 04/30/07 Page 4 of 6
- 5 -

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.'” Id. (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

Herein, the first three factors tip the balance in favor of dismissal. Moreover, although

public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits, the record supports dismissal of

Plaintiff 's claims against National Millworks pursuant to L.R.Civ. 7.2(i) given that: (1) both

Plaintiff and his California counsel were served with the Motion in December 2006, more

than three months have passed since the expiration of the time to respond, and no response

or motion requesting leave to file a late response have been filed; (2) both Plaintiff and

California counsel were served with Defendant National Millworks' March 16, 2007 Notice

of Motion at Issue requesting that this Court grant the Motion pursuant to L.R.Civ. 7.2(i) and

no filing on behalf of Plaintiff regarding the Motion to Dismiss or Notice of Motion at Issue

has been submitted; and (3) more than ten days have passed since Mr. Jachimowicz was

granted pro hac vice admission and he has made no filing on behalf of Plaintiff concerning

the Motion to Dismiss or Notice of Motion at Issue. Under such circumstances the record

supports the conclusion that Plaintiff does not wish to pursue his claims alleged against

Defendant National Millworks. Further, Plaintiff’s complete failure to respond to the pending

Motion to Dismiss or to request a continuance to respond to such Motion supports the

conclusion that imposition of less drastic sanctions would not be beneficial. Accordingly,

the instant record considered in light of the five factors set out in Ghazali supports granting

Defendant National Millworks' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to L.R.Civ. 7.2(i).

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court

grant Defendant National Millworks' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 3) pursuant to L.R.Civ.

7.2(i) and all claims against Defendant National Millworks should be dismissed.

Case 4:06-cv-00599-FRZ-HCE Document 13 Filed 04/30/07 Page 5 of 6
- 6 -

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections within

ten days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. A party may

respond to another party's objections within ten days after being served with a copy thereof.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). If objections are filed, the parties should use the following case number:

CV 06-599-TUC-FRZ.

If objections are not timely filed, then the parties' right to de novo review by the

District Court may be deemed waived. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003).

DATED this 30th day of April, 2007.

Case 4:06-cv-00599-FRZ-HCE Document 13 Filed 04/30/07 Page 6 of 6