Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Jan. 16, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Deborah Pearson v. Sysco Food Distribution and Restaurant Supplies, et al.

District Court, W.D. Washington

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2:24-cv-02115

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

1

2

3

4

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

7

DEBORAH PEARSON, CASE NO. C24-2115-KKE

8

               Plaintiff(s),     ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO                 

9

v. DISMISS

10

SYSCO FOOD DISTRIBUTION and

RESTAURANT SUPPLIES, et al.,

11

                Defendant(s).                                             

12

13 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a
14 claim; for failure to name the correct legal entity; and for failure to timely serve Mayra Casanova,
15 Nathaniel Spitzer, and Barbara Barde. Dkt. No. 21. Plaintiff Deborah Pearson, representing
16 herself and proceeding in forma pauperis, did not file an opposition. For the reasons below, the
17 Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss as unopposed.

18 I. BACKGROUND

19 On February 14, 2025, Pearson, representing herself, filed a complaint against Sysco Food
20 Distribution & Restaurant Supplies, as well as two managers and human resources employee at
21 Sysco, alleging employment discrimination. Dkt. No. 7 at 2–3. On July 8, 2025, the Court ordered
22 Plaintiff to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve her complaint
23 within 90 days of filing her complaint. Dkt. No. 10. After Pearson responded to the Court’s order
24 to show cause, the Court extended Pearson’s deadline to serve all defendants until August 29,
1 2025. Dkt. Nos. 11, 12. On September 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed an affidavit showing she served
2 Sysco Food Distribution & Restaurant Supplies on August 28, 2025. Dkt. No. 13. The affidavit
3 did not show service upon individual defendants Mayra Casanova, Nathaniel Spitzer, or Barbara

4 Barde. Dkt. No. 13.

5 Defendants now move to dismiss the Complaint on three separate grounds: First, they
6 argue that Pearson failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Pearson’s
7 asserted grounds for relief do not provide for individual liability. Dkt. No. 21 at 5–6 (citing Miller
8 v. Maxwell’s Int’l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587–88 (9th Cir. 1993)). Second, Defendants contend that
9 under Rule 4(m), the Complaint must be dismissed as to the individually-named defendants
10 because Pearson failed to properly serve any of them, despite the Court’s prior order directing
11 Plaintiff to serve Defendants by August 29, 2025. Id. at 3–4. Finally, Defendants argue that the
12 case should be dismissed against Sysco because Plaintiff failed to name the correct legal entity.

13 Id. at 2–3. Pearson did not respond or otherwise oppose the motion. Thus, as detailed below, the
14 Court will grant Defendants’ motion as unopposed.

15 II. ANALYSIS

16 In this district, “if a party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, such failure may be
17 considered by the court as an admission that the motion has merit.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR
18 7(b)(2). The Ninth Circuit has affirmed dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s case for failure to respond
19 to a motion to dismiss, consistent with a local rule. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.
20 1995). “Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.” Id. 21 “Before dismissing the action, the district court is required to weigh several factors: (1) the public’s
22 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the

23 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases [on] their
24

1 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Id. (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 2 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)) (citation modified).

3 The public’s interest in expeditious resolution, the Court’s need to manage its docket, and

4 the risk of prejudice to the defendants all weigh in favor of dismissal here. Although public policy
5 favoring disposition of cases on the merits weighs against dismissal, “that objective can only be
6 achieved if plaintiff elects to cooperate in the process.” Lambert v. Aston, No. C17-1792-RAJ-
7 JPD, 2018 WL 6517556, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2018), report and recommendation
8 adopted, No. C17-1792-RAJ, 2018 WL 6505430 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 10, 2018). Thus, “this factor
9 lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the
10 merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA)
11 Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation modified).

12 Finally, the Court finds dismissal is appropriate despite the availability of a less drastic

13 sanction. The Ninth Circuit has explained that in assessing this factor, a district court should
14 consider “the adequacy of less drastic sanctions,” and whether it provided the plaintiff with a
15 warning of the possibility of dismissal. In re Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1228–29. Here,
16 as Defendants observe, the Court could dismiss the action as to the individually-named Defendants
17 and allow Pearson to amend her complaint to substitute the proper corporate entity. However,
18 such a sanction would be inadequate in this case. Here, Pearson’s deadline to oppose the motion
19 to dismiss elapsed over two months ago, and, to date, she has neither filed a response nor requested
20 an extension of time from the Court. Indeed, this is not the first deadline Pearson has missed in
21 this case. Despite filing her complaint on February 14, 2025, Pearson failed to effectuate service
22 on any defendant until August 28, 2025, and only did so following the Court’s issuance of an order

23 to show cause. See Dkt. Nos. 1, 10, 13. Moreover, the Court has previously warned Pearson that
24 failure to comply with a court order could lead to dismissal of the case. See Dkt. No. 10 (ordering
1 Pearson to show cause why her case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and
2 explaining that her failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in dismissal without
3 prejudice).

4 Thus, having weighed the factors, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Dkt.
5 No. 21.

6 III. CONCLUSION

7 In sum, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 21) and dismisses the case
8 without prejudice.

9 Dated this 16th day of January, 2026.

10

A

11

Kymberly K. Evanson

12 United States District Judge

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24