Free Motion to Dismiss Case - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 49.9 kB
Pages: 2
Date: September 12, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 416 Words, 2,436 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/43033/32.pdf

Download Motion to Dismiss Case - District Court of Arizona ( 49.9 kB)


Preview Motion to Dismiss Case - District Court of Arizona
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

John T. Masterson, Bar #007447 Jennifer L. Holsman, Bar #022787 J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 263-7310 Facsimile: (602) 651-7507 E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Rogers and Barr IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 10 Max Albert Raya, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15 16 17
P.L.C.
85012 263-1700

NO. 04-92-PHX-FJM (JI)

Jeremy Barr, Richard Rogers, Joseph M. Arpaio, Maricopa County, Board of Supervisors, Phoenix Police Department, et al., Defendants.

DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

AVENUE LAW

Defendants Barr and Rogers, through counsel, and pursuant to Local
800

Rule 7.2(i) and FED. R. C IV. P ROC. 41(b), request summary disposition of their previously filed Motion to Dismiss based on the absence of any response by Plaintiff. Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on August 19, 2005. Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was due on or about September 5, 2005. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants' motion.

Case 2:04-cv-00092-NVW

Document 32

Filed 09/12/2005

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
P.L.C.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(i), a Plaintiff's failure to respond to a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion without further notice. See also, Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). Thus, Plaintiff's failure to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss must be treated as silent acquiescence to the granting of Defendants' motion. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that their Motion to Dismiss be granted based on Plaintiff's non-compliance with the rules and for failure to file a timely responsive pleading. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 12 th day of September 2005. J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C. By /s/ Jennifer L. Holsman John T. Masterson Jennifer L. Holsman 2901 North Central Avenue Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Defendants Rogers and Barr
800

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

COPY of the foregoing mailed this 9 th day of September 2005, to: Max Raya #185879 ASPC - Florence /Central P.O. Box 8200 Florence, AZ 85232 Plaintiff pro per

/s/ Kamika A. Brown 26
1527301_1

85012 263-1700

18

AVENUE LAW

2 Document 32 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:04-cv-00092-NVW