Semper v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 PHILLIP SEMPER, et al., Case No. 2:20-CV-1875 JCM (EJY)

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER

9 v.

10 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12

13 Presently before the court are defendants’ motions to dismiss all claims brought by the 14 unrepresented plaintiffs: Corey Bass, Carlos Bass, Breanna Nellums, and Antonio Williams. 15 (ECF Nos. 105–108). Those plaintiffs have not responded, and the time to do so has now 16 passed. 17 Pursuant to District of Nevada Local Rule 7-2(d), “the failure of an opposing party to file 18 points and authorities in response to any motion ... constitutes a consent to the granting of the 19 motion.” LR 7-2(d); see Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a 20 district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”). 21 However, the court will not automatically grant every unopposed motion. First, the court 22 must weigh the following factors: “(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 23 (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the 24 public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 25 sanctions.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 26 Having considered defendants’ motions and the complaint in light of the Ghazali factors, 27 the court grants the motion. The first three factors—the public's interest in expeditiously 28 1 | resolving this litigation, the court's interest in managing the docket, and the risk of prejudice to defendants—all weigh in favor of dismissal. See id.; Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976) (holding that a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay). Further, the unrepresented plaintiffs have not meaningfully participated in the case since at least October 2021, have failed to respond to several motions, and did not appear for their 6 | noticed depositions in March 2023. Therefore, dismissal is appropriate. 7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that defendants’ motions to 9 | dismiss (ECF No. 105-108) be, and the same hereby are, GRANTED 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims of Carlos Bass, Corey Bass, Breanna 11 Nellums, and Antonio Williams be, and the same hereby are DISMISSED. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to stay (ECF No. 111) be, and the 13 same hereby is, DENIED, as moot. 14 DATED April 21, 2023. 15 Rte CO. Atala 16 UNiTEDSTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

es C. Mahan District Judge _2-