Murphy v. Ricci

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 10 KEVIN A. MURPHY, CASE NO. 3:19-cv-06171-RBL-JRC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER RENOTING MOTION TO 12 v. DISMISS AND DIRECTING DEFENDANT RICCI TO PROVIDE 13 PAUL PASTOR, et al., NOTICE OF DISPOSITIVE MOTION 14 Defendants.

16 This matter is before the Court on defendant D. Ricci’s motion to dismiss. See Dkt. 20.

17 When she filed her motion to dismiss, defendant Ricci did not file a notice of dispositive motion informing plaintiff of the consequences if the motion were granted. Such is required by the Ninth Circuit. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935 (9th Cir. 2012).

20 The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that failure to provide such a notice is not typically harmless. Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 961–62 (9th Cir. 1998). Here, on the same day that defendant Ricci filed her motion, the other defendants filed their motion to dismiss, along with a notice of dispositive motion. See Dkts. 20–22. However, the other defendants’ notice refers to them—and not to defendant Ricci—and plaintiff may have believed that he needed to file an opposition to the other defendants’ motion, but not to defendant Ricci’s.

3 Out of an abundance of caution, therefore, the undersigned declines to issue a report and recommendation on defendant Ricci’s motion to dismiss at this time. Rather, defendant Ricci shall file a notice of dispositive motion on or before May 15, 2020, and the Court renotes her motion to dismiss (Dkt. 20) for consideration on May 29, 2020. Under the Court’s local rules, therefore, plaintiff will have until May 25, 2020 to file any response to the motion to dismiss.

8 The Clerk shall renote Dkt. 20 accordingly and shall send a copy of this Order to plaintiff.

10 Dated this 5th day of May, 2020.

A J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge