Lane v. Skanska USA Inc

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE SHARON LANE, Case No. C22-926-RSM Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 11 MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS SKANSKA USA INC., et al., 14 Defendants.

16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”)’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Sharon Lane’s Complaint. Dkt. #30. Defendant Skanska USA Building Inc. (“Skanska”) does not oppose the relief requested by Microsoft. Dkt. #33. Plaintiff Sharon Lane has not filed a response and the time for filing such has expired. On April 21, 2023, Microsoft filed a Notice of Non-Opposition indicating the same. Dkt. #34.

22 “Except for motions for summary judgment, if a party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, such failure may be considered by the court as an admission that the motion has merit.” 24 LCR 7(b)(2). “Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal” if, prior to dismissal, the district court evaluates five factors. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Courts must explicitly consider (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s need to manage its own docket, (3) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits, (4) the risk of prejudice to the defendant, and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Id. Since Microsoft filed its motion to dismiss, Plaintiff has filed other motions, indicating she is aware of Microsoft’s motion to dismiss. See Dkt. #31 (filed 17 days after Microsoft’s motion to dismiss). While courts heavily favor adjudication on the merits of a case, failure to address the opposing party’s legal arguments imposes a burden on both the Court and the public as it usurps judicial resources from those parties that actively seek to resolve their disputes. As a failure to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss may be construed as an admission that dismissal is warranted, dismissal is the appropriate sanction.

Accordingly, Defendant Microsoft Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Sharon Lane’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. #30) is GRANTED and this action IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendant Microsoft Corporation.

15 DATED this 25th day of April, 2023.

18 A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE