Keisha Stephens v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.

1 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Jan 22, 2026 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK — 3 — — 4 — 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON — 6 — 7 KEISHA STEPHENS, NO. 2:25-CV-0275-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 9 v. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 10 SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC, — 11 — Defendant. — 12 — — 13 — 14 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the 15 Pleadings. ECF No. 8. This matter was submitted for consideration without oral 16 argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein, the briefing, and is 17 fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s Motion is 18 GRANTED. 19 Plaintiff also has failed to respond to the present Motion for Judgment on the 20 Pleadings. It is now January 2026. 1 DISCUSSION 2 Defendant moves to dismiss. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), 3 provides: 4 If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim 5 against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule – 6 except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19 – operates as an adjudication on the merits. — 7 — 8 Upon a motion to dismiss under these Rules, the district court must weigh 9 the following factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 10 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 11 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 12 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. 13 Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 890 (9th Cir. 2019) (Rule 41); Wanderer v Johnson, — 14 — 910 F.2d 652 , 656 (9th Cir. 1990) (Rule 37). 15 Here, Rule 41(b) is triggered on the independent grounds that Plaintiff failed 16 to prosecute her claims where she has demonstrated an unwillingness to respond to 17 the motion. The Court has considered the aforementioned factors. Plaintiff’s 18 unresponsiveness and unwillingness to move forward in this action threatens both 19 the expeditious resolution and the orderly and timely disposition of the case on the 20 Court’s docket. The factor in favor of adjudication on the merits is outweighed by the other factors in favor of dismissal. See Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 960-61 (9th Cir. 2006). 3 For these reasons, the Court finds that dismissal is appropriate. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion seeking dismissal is granted. 5|| ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 6 1. Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 8, is 7 GRANTED. 8 2. The Complaint and all claims against Defendant are DISMISSED with 9 prejudice. 10 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment accordingly, provide copies to the parties, and CLOSE the file. 12 DATED January 22, 2026. <> United States District Judge — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE