Kruska v. Ochoa et al

Filing 134

ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Pla's #73 Motion and Affidavit withExhibits to Quash Replies, Memorandums, etc., Motion for Judgment in Full, and Motion to Recover Services Expenses. FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING #87 Motion to Withdraw Judicial Notice, Special Motion, Motion for Judgment (In Reference to Doc. 73 Only). Signed by Judge Stephen M McNamee on 11/15/08.(SAT)

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

) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) PERVERTED JUSTICE FOUNDATION) ) INCORPORATED, et. al., ) ) ) Defendant. ) ) JAN E. KRUSKA,

No. CV 08-0054-PHX-SMM ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion and Affidavit with Exhibits to Quash Replies, Memorandums, etc., Motion for Judgment in Full, and Motion to Recover Services Expenses ("Motion to Quash") (Doc. 73) and Motion to Withdraw Judicial Notice, Special Motion, Motion for Judgment (In Reference to Doc. 73 Only) ("Motion to Withdraw") (Doc. 87). In her Motion to Quash, Plaintiff asserts that Steven G. Ford, counsel for Defendants Christopher Brocious and Barbara Ochoa, is not admitted to practice with the District Court of Arizona (Doc. 73, ¶9). Plaintiff indicates that she checked the Arizona District Court website and was unable to locate any Steven Ford admitted to practice (Doc. 73, ¶10). As a result, Plaintiff requests that the Court quash all motions, replies, and filings by defense counsel (Doc. 73). Further, Plaintiff asks the Court to grant

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

judgment in full in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Brocious and Ochoa (Doc. 73). In the Response filed by Defendants, counsel attaches a printout from the U.S. District Court of Arizona website showing his admission and active status (Doc. 79). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Withdraw in which she indicates a computer "glitch" was to blame for her inability to locate defense counsel on the District Court website (Doc 87, ¶6). Despite searching the website three times for Steven Ford, Plaintiff received the same message, "the query returned no matches" (Doc. 87, ¶2). Based upon this inability to verify that defense counsel was admitted to practice in the District Court of Arizona, Plaintiff submitted the Motion to Quash (Doc. 87, ¶4). In light of the evidence that defense counsel Steven Ford is admitted to practice in the District Court of Arizona, the Court will grant the withdrawal of Plaintiff's Motion to Quash. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff's Motion and Affidavit with Exhibits to Quash Replies, Memorandums, etc., Motion for Judgment in Full, and Motion to Recover Services Expenses (Doc. 73). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Motion to Withdraw Judicial Notice, Special Motion, Motion for Judgment (In Reference to Doc. 73 Only) (Doc. 87). DATED this 15th day of November, 2008.

-2-