Villanueva v. Unknown Party

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Diana Elizabeth Luque Villanueva,
Plaintiff,
v.
Unknown Party,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-02229-PHX-DWL
ORDER
On June 27, 2025, Plaintiff (who is proceeding pro se) initiated this action. (Doc.
1.) That same day, the Clerk’s office issued a “Notice to Pro-Se Non-Prisoner Parties
Representing Themselves.” (Doc. 3.) Among other things, the notice advised Plaintiff that
“[i]f you DO NOT respond to a motion within the requirements of the local Rules, the
Court may assume consent to the denial or granting of the motion and may dispose of the
motion summarily under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i).” (Id. at 5.)
On December 19, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6). (Doc. 17.) Under LRCiv 7.2(b), Plaintiff’s response was due within 30
days—that is, by January 19, 2026.
On January 22, 2026, after Plaintiff failed to respond, the Court issued an order
explaining that “[a]lthough the Court could summarily grant the motion based on the lack
of response, see LRCiv 7.2(i), the Court will, as a one-time courtesy, extend the response
deadline. Plaintiff is again warned that if she does not file a response by the deadline, the
Court may summarily grant the motion.” (Doc. 18.) The new response deadline was
Case 2:25-cv-02229-DWL Document 19 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
January 29, 2026. (Id.) That deadline has now expired and Plaintiff has once again not
responded.
Under LRCiv 7.2(i), “if [an] unrepresented party . . . does not serve and file the
required answering memoranda, . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the
denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” As
noted, Plaintiff has been repeatedly advised of this rule and of the consequences of not
responding.
“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal . . .
[but] [b]efore dismissing the action, the district court is required to weigh several factors:
(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to
manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.”
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). See also Wystrach v. 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 because plaintiffs failed
timely to respond. Local Rule 7.2(i) of the Rules of Practice of 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 answering memorandum.”). The
Court has considered the relevant factors and concludes 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 interfered with the Court’s ability
to manage its docket and Defendant faces a risk of prejudice from further delay. These
considerations outweigh the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and
a without-prejudice dismissal is the only feasible alternative to a with-prejudice dismissal.
…
…
…
…
Case 2:25-cv-02229-DWL Document 19 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 17) is summarily granted.
2. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter
judgment accordingly and terminate this action.
Dated this 30th day of January, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-02229-DWL Document 19 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 3