Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01318/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01318-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Lewis Hobson
Plaintiff
Temple-Inlet
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 1

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962 (9th Cir. 1998).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kevin Lewis Hobson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Temple-Inlet, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1318-PHX-SMM

ORDER 

NOTICE--WARNING TO PLAINTIFF

THIS NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO YOU BY THE COURT1

The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 20] seeks to have your complaint

dismissed. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

will, if granted, dispose of your case. Because the Defendants' Motion was filed on October 2,

2007, your response will be due on October 19, 2007.

Plaintiff is advised of the following specific provisions of LRCiv 7.2 of the Rules of

Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona:

Subparagraph (e) provides:

Unless otherwise permitted by the Court, a motion including its supporting

memorandum, and the response including its supporting memorandum, each shall

not exceed seventeen (17) pages, exclusive of attachments and any required

statement of facts. Unless otherwise permitted by the Court, a reply including its

Case 2:07-cv-01318-SMM Document 21 Filed 10/03/07 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 -

supporting memorandum shall not exceed eleven (11) pages, exclusive of

attachments.

Subparagraph (i) provides:

If a motion does not conform in all substantial respects with the requirements of

this Local Rule, or if the opposing party does not serve and file the required

answering memoranda, or if counsel for any party fails to appear at the time and

place assigned for oral argument, such non-compliance may be deemed a consent

to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion

summarily.

It is Plaintiff's obligation to timely respond to all motions. The failure of Plaintiff to

respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss may, in the discretion of the Court, be deemed a

consent to the granting of that Motion without further notice, and judgment may be entered

dismissing the claims with prejudice pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i). See Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d

651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until 5:00 p.m. Friday,

October 19, 2007, to file a response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

DATED this 3rd day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01318-SMM Document 21 Filed 10/03/07 Page 2 of 2