Sharae Mayes v. Smart and Final, Inc., 17-16564

Mayes sued Smart & Final and five employees under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and Title VII, alleging retaliation for reporting expired/defective products on store shelves.
Smart & Final moved to dismiss; Mayes’s counsel failed to file an opposition within the local-rule deadline in the District of Nevada (D. Nev. Civ. R. 7-2(d)).
The district court treated the absence of an opposition as consent and dismissed the complaint under its local rule. Mayes did not amend the complaint before dismissal.
The court noted substantive defects: § 1983/§ 1985 claims lacked state action/cognizable right, and Title VII claims required exhaustion of administrative remedies, which was not shown.
Mayes moved for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), alleging counsel’s procedural failures and mail/filing issues; the district court denied relief.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed dismissal and denial of reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal was proper under D. Nev. Civ. R. 7-2(d) for failure to file an opposition	Mayes argued counsel’s filing difficulties and pro hac vice confusion excused the default	Smart & Final argued the local-rule consent applies and dismissal is appropriate given no opposition and procedural history	Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; several dismissal-favoring factors present (expedited resolution, docket management, lack of prejudice to defendants)
Whether dismissal was improper given likely merits of claims (§ 1983, § 1985, Title VII)	Mayes argued claims were colorable and merited consideration	Smart & Final argued § 1983/§ 1985 lack state action or cognizable right; Title VII claims unrebuttedly unexhausted	Affirmed: court noted § 1983/§ 1985 were legally deficient and Title VII required exhaustion, supporting dismissal on the merits
Whether Rule 60(b) relief was warranted for counsel’s mistakes, inadvertence, or excusable neglect	Mayes argued counsel’s mistakes, paralegal mailing, and pro hac vice complications justified relief	Smart & Final argued counsel’s excuses were inadequate and parties are bound by their lawyers’ acts	Affirmed: district court properly denied reconsideration; proffered reasons were insufficient to meet Rule 60(b) standards

MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle, 457 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for district court’s discretionary orders)
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (failure to file opposition under local rule may be treated as consent; factors for dismissal)
Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal is a harsh penalty to be used in extreme circumstances)
Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 1999) (public interest in expeditious resolution favors dismissal)
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2002) (trial judge best positioned to assess docket-management prejudice)
Great Am. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366 (U.S. 1979) (limits on § 1983/§ 1985 where no state action or cognizable right exists)
Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2004) (parties are bound by actions of their attorneys)
Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (issues regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies)