Ibeabuchi v. Arizona State University et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying 15 Plaintiff's Motion to Reset Date for Oral Argument. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 7/9/09.(DMT, )

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, ) ) vs. ) ) Arizona State University; Michael Crow;) ) Dr. Nicholas Alozie, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Patricia N. Ibeabuchi,

No. 08-2270-PHX-JAT ORDER

Plaintiff Patricia Ibeabuchi requested oral argument on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. On June 2, 2009, the Court set oral argument on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for 1:30 p.m. on June 23, 2009. (Doc. #11). Counsel for Defendants attended the June 23rd oral argument; Ms. Ibeabuchi did not. The Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on June 24, 2009. (Doc. #13). The Clerk of the Court entered Judgement on June 24, 2009 pursuant to the Dismissal Order. (Doc. #14). On June 26, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reset Date for Oral Argument (Doc. #15). In her Motion, Plaintiff claims that she was unexpectedly away from home for an extended period of time, so she did not know about the oral argument. Plaintiff complains that she did not receive thirty-days' notice of the oral argument. Plaintiff has cited to no rule or case law mandating that the Court provide thirty-days' notice for an oral argument. Nor does the Court believe that the 21-days' notice given was

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

insufficient. The Court finds no reason to re-open the case to hold another oral argument.1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Reset Date for Oral Argument (Doc. #15). DATED this 9th day of July, 2009.

Oral argument was set because Plaintiff requested it. But it is clear that oral argument would not have aided the Court's decisional process. See e.g., Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998) -2-

1