Victoria Lynne Girard v. County of Maricopa, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: October 30, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-03503
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Victoria Lynne Girard, No. CV-24-03503-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 County of Maricopa, et al.,

13 Defendant. 14 15 In December 2024, pro se Plaintiff initiated this action by filing the complaint and 16 paying the filing fee. (Docs. 1, 6.) The Court later issued its preliminary order, which 17 among other things “specifically advised” the parties “that failure to prosecute, to comply 18 with court orders, or to comply with the Local and Federal Rules may result in dismissal 19 of all or part of this case, default, imposition of sanctions, or summary disposition of 20 matters pending before the Court.” (Doc. 16 at 6.) 21 On August 26, 2025, the Court held the Rule 16 scheduling conference. (Doc. 27.) 22 That same day, the Court issued two orders: (1) the scheduling order; and (2) an order 23 referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Macdonald for the purpose of conducting a 24 settlement conference. The former provided, among other things, that “[t]he deadline for 25 making the initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) is 14 26 days from the date of this Order.” (Doc. 28 at 1.) The latter “directed” the parties “to 27 contact Judge Macdonald’s chambers within 14 days of the date of this Order to schedule 28 a hearing date and time.” (Doc. 29 at 1.) 1 Defendant complied with both orders—it timely served its initial disclosures on 2 Plaintiff (Doc. 30) and timely contact Judge Macdonald’s chambers (Doc. 31-1 at 8). 3 However, Plaintiff did not serve her initial disclosures on Defendant or contact Judge 4 Macdonald’s chambers by the relevant deadlines. Accordingly, on September 22, 2025, 5 Defendant’s counsel sent an email to Plaintiff inquiring about both matters. (Doc. 31-1 at 6 3.) On September 29, 2025, after Plaintiff failed to respond, Defendant’s counsel sent her 7 a follow-up email. (Id. at 5.) 8 On October 3, 2025, after Plaintiff did not respond to the follow-up email, 9 Defendant filed a motion “for an Order compelling Plaintiff to submit her Initial Disclosure 10 Statement, or in the alternative, to dismiss this action.” (Doc. 31.) Under LRCiv 7.2(c), 11 Plaintiff’s response was due by October 17, 2025, but that deadline has now expired and 12 Plaintiff still has not filed a response. 13 As this backdrop shows, Plaintiff has now violated two court orders and failed to 14 prosecute this case. Such conduct, alone, may justify dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 15 Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962) (discussing the district court’s authority 16 to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for lack of prosecution); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 17 F.2d 1258, 1260-1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (discussing the district court’s authority to dismiss 18 for failure to comply with court orders). Additionally, because Plaintiff failed to respond 19 to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, the Court could summarily grant that motion. See LRCiv 20 7.2(i) (“[I]f the unrepresented party . . . does not serve and file the required answering 21 memoranda, . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the 22 motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.”). 23 Before dismissing on any of these bases, “the district court is required to weigh 24 several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 25 court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 26 policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 27 sanctions.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). See also Wystrach v. 28 Ciachurski, 267 F. App’x 606, 607-08 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The court also did not abuse its discretion in applying its local rule summarily to grant defendants’ motion to dismiss 2|| because plaintiffs failed timely to respond. Local Rule 7.2(i) of the Rules of Practice of 3|| the United States District Court for the District of Arizona authorizes a court to dispose summarily of a motion, if the non-moving party fails to serve and file the required 5 || answering memorandum.”). The Court has considered the relevant factors and concludes 6|| they support dismissal without prejudice under these circumstances, where Plaintiff’s non- || compliance has thwarted the public’s interest in expedited resolution of litigation and 8 || interfered with the Court’s ability to manage its docket and where Defendant faces a risk of prejudice from further delay. These considerations outweigh the public policy favoring 10 || disposition of cases on their merits, and a without-prejudice dismissal is the only feasible 11 || alternative to a with-prejudice dismissal. 12 Accordingly, 13 IT IS ORDERED that: 14 1. Defendant’s motion (Doc. 31) is summarily granted. 15 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment || accordingly and close this case. 17 Dated this 30th day of October, 2025. 18

20 } □□ □□ Dominic W. Lanza 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-