Free Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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
Case 2:03-cv-02159-ROS-JRI Document 90 1 - Filed 07/05/2007 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Timothy Lee Ward, Plaintiff -vsKarr, et al., Defendant(s) CV-03-2159-PHX-ROS (JI) ORDER

NOTICE - WARNING TO PLAINTIFF - Defendant Carr has filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. Defendant's motion to dismiss seeks to have your case dismissed. Their motion will, if granted, end your case. Plaintiff is advised of the following specific provisions of Local Civil Rule 7.2, Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona: (e) Length of Motions and Memoranda. 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 supporting memorandum shall not exceed eleven (11) pages, exclusive of attachments. *** (i) Briefs or Memoranda of Law; Effect of Non-Compliance. If a motion does not conform in all substantial respects with the requirements of this Local Rule, or if the unrepresented party or counsel does not serve and file the required answering memoranda, or if the unrepresented party or counsel 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. You must timely respond to all motions. The Court may, in its discretion, treat your failure to respond to the Motion to Dismiss as a consent to the granting of that Motion without further notice, and judgment may be entered dismissing this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 7.2(i) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. See Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Response - Plaintiff shall have until July 30, 2007 within which to respond to Defendant Carr's Motion to Dismiss the complaint, filed June 26, 2007 (#88). 2. Reply - Defendants shall have fifteen days from service of the responsive memorandum within which to file a reply. 3. Consideration of Motion - The Motion to Dismiss will be deemed ready for decision without oral argument on the day following the date set for filing a reply unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 4. Joint Proposed Pre-Trial Order - In the event that this motion to dismiss remains pending on any deadline set for filing of a jointly proposed pre-trial order, then such deadline shall be extended to a date thirty (30) days following the entry of an order disposing of this motion to dismiss.

DATED: July 3, 2007
S:\Drafts\OutBox\03-2159-88o Order 07 06 27 re Sched MTD.wpd

_____________________________________ JAY R. IRWIN United States Magistrate Judge

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-02159-ROS-JRI Document 90 2 - Filed 07/05/2007 Page 2 of 2