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

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

PAGE – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

LINDA YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

KNOWLEDGE LEARNING

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-1740RSM

ORDER OF VOLUNTARY 

 DISMISSAL

This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment and

plaintiff’s related motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. (Dkts. #7 and #10).

On September 14, 2005, plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in the King County Superior

Court, alleging that defendant had unlawfully denied her medical and dental benefits that were

due to her under an existing employee benefit plan. (Dkt. #1). Defendant removed the action to

this Court, asserting federal jurisdiction under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of

1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., by which its benefit plan is governed. Defendant

then filed its pending motion for summary judgment, arguing first that plaintiff has asserted state

law claims, and those claims should be dismissed because they are preempted by ERISA, and

Case 2:05-cv-01740-RSM Document 12 Filed 01/17/06 Page 1 of 3
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

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

PAGE – 2

second, that in any event, plaintiff had been given the opportunity to enroll in its benefits

programs, but failed to enroll in such programs, and therefore, her claims are now precluded.

Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of her case. (Dkt. #10). In that

motion, plaintiff’s counsel explains that plaintiff has moved out of state, he has been unable to

contact her, and she has failed to contact him, and therefore, he is unable to adequately prepare

a response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, he asks the Court to

grant voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice.

Plaintiff also subsequently filed a response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

(Dkt. #11). Plaintiff’s counsel reiterates the reasoning behind his motion for voluntary dismissal,

and asks that the Court rule on that motion prior to making a ruling on the motion for summary

judgment.

Defendant has failed to respond to plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal. Defendant

has also declined to file a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the

Court can only assume that defendant does not oppose voluntary dismissal. Accordingly, and in

the interest of judicial economy, the Court will resolve both pending motions in this Order.

Having reviewed defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiff’s Motion for

Voluntary Dismissal, plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss, and the remainder of the

record, the Court does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. #10) is GRANTED, and this case is

DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court finds good cause for the dismissal, and defendant

has provided no legal argument or authority to the contrary. This District’s local rules state that

“[i]f a party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, such failure may be considered by the

court as an admission that the motion has merit.” Local Rule CR 7(b)(2). Having reviewed the

record in this case, the Court finds no reason not to apply this rule.

Case 2:05-cv-01740-RSM Document 12 Filed 01/17/06 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

PAGE – 3

(2) Having determined that voluntary dismissal is appropriate in this case, the Court finds

that defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #7) is now moot.

(3) The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

DATED this 17 day of January 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-01740-RSM Document 12 Filed 01/17/06 Page 3 of 3