Estrada, et al. v San Luis, City of

Filing 26

ORDER denying as moot 25 Motion to Dismiss Case. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/9/2008.(NVJ)

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

) Frank Estrada and Carman Estrada, husband and wife; and Othon Luna and ) ) Estella Luna, husband and wife, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) City of San Luis; Rafael Torres; ) Rural/Metro Fire Department Inc.; Rural/Metro Protection Services, Inc.; ) and Rural/Metro (Delaware) Corporation ) ) (FN), ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) Frank Estrada and Carman Estrada, ) husband and wife; and Othon Luna and ) Estella Luna, husband and wife, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) City of San Luis; Rural/Metro Fire ) Department Inc.; Rural/Metro Protection ) Services, Inc.; Rural/Metro (Delaware) ) Corporation (FN); Rafael Torres; Juan ) Carlos Escamilla; Lee Maness; and ) Gabriel Jimenez, ) ) Defendants. ) ) _________________________________ )

Consolidated Actions No. CV-07-1071-PHX-DGC (Lead Case) No. CV-08-0945-PHX-DGC (Member Case) ORDER

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

On May 29, 2007, Plaintiffs commenced an action in this Court against the City of San Luis, Rafael Torres, and various Rural/Metro entities (Case No. CV-07-1071-PHXDGC) ("First Action"). Nearly a year later, on May 19, 2008, Plaintiff filed another action in this Court against the defendants named in the First Action and three other defendants (Case No. CV-08-0945-PHX-ROS) ("Second Action"). The actions have been consolidated. Dkt. #22 (CV-08-0945); Dkt. #89 (CV-07-1071). In an order dated November 15, 2007, the Court dismissed all claims asserted against Rural/Metro in the First Action based on Noerr-Pennington immunity. Dkt. #45 (CV-071071). Rural Metro has filed a motion to dismiss the Second Action as an impermissible attack on the Court's order of dismissal in the First Action. Dkt. #25 (CV-08-0945). Plaintiffs have not filed a response to the motion, and the time for doing so has expired. See LRCiv 7.2(c). The Court already has dismissed the Second Action as impermissibly duplicative of the First Action. Dkt. #23 (CV-08-0945); Dkt. #90 (CV-07-1071). The Court therefore will deny Rural/Metro's motion to dismiss the Second Action as moot. IT IS ORDERED that the Rural/Metro Defendants' motion to dismiss complaint in CV-08-0945 (Dkt. #25) is denied as moot. DATED this 9th day of September, 2008.

-2-