Modak v. Valley Electric

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 AZEEM MODAK, CASE NO. C19-1198-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 VALLEY ELECTRIC, 13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings 16 (Dkt. No. 12). Defendant filed its motion on February 20, 2020. Plaintiff has failed to respond to 17 Defendant’s motion. 18 A motion for judgment on the pleadings brought under Rule 12(c) “faces the same test as 19 a motion under Rule 12(b)(6).” McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 810 (9th Cir. 20 1988). Thus, “judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when, taking all allegations in the 21 pleading as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” McGann v. Ernst 22 & Young, 102 F.3d 390, 392 (9th Cir. 1996). Under Ninth Circuit precedent, if a plaintiff fails to 23 respond to a defendant’s motion to dismiss, then a district court may dismiss the case without 24 reaching the merits. See W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 7(b)(2); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 25 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming district court’s dismissal without prejudice); Marcus v. ABC Signature 26 Studios, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 3d 1056, 1063 (C.D. Cal. 2017). Because the same test applies to 1 judgment on the pleadings, that approach is appropriate here. Consequently, the Court 2 DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. 3 DATED this 7th day of May 2020. A 4 5 6 John C. Coughenour 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26