Motion Picture Association of America v. CrystalTech Web Hosting Inc.

Filing 659

1 2

MARICOPA COUNTY OFFICE OF GENERAL LITIGATION SERVICES By: SHERLE R. FLAGGMAN State Bar No. 019079 Firm No. 00608900

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 v.

Maricopa County Administration Building 301 West Jefferson Street, Suite 3200 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Telephone [phone] [e-mail] Attorney for Defendants Maricopa Medical Center and Maricopa County Special Health Care District IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA JOHN STEVEN SIMON, Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS MARICOPA MEDICAL CENTER AND THE MARICOPA COUNTY SPECIAL HEALTH CARE DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS NO. CV09-701 (MHM)

CITY OF PHOENIX, et al. Defendants.

Defendants Maricopa Medical Center ("MMC") and Maricopa County Special Healthcare District ("The District") hereby submit their Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiffs latest motion comes on the heels of so many frivolous and convoluted motions before it, each of which has required Defendants to waste time and money 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

responding. For instance, these Defendants, while waiting for the Courts ruling on their Motion to Dismiss, have been forced to file Doc. #45 - Response to Plaintiffs Motion To Strike Maricopa Medical Center And Maricopa County Special Healthcare Districts Motion To Dismiss and Response To Plaintiffs Second Motion To Amend Plaintiffs Response Motion To Strike Maricopa Medical Center And Maricopa County Health Care Districts Motion To Dismiss; Doc. #56 - Response To Plaintiffs Motion To Compel; and Doc. # 59 - Response To Plaintiffs Motion To Compel Items Of Request. Plaintiffs latest foray into the land of impermissible motions is his Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12 provides that "After the pleadings are closed--but early enough not to delay trial--a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Plaintiff apparently misapprehends the meaning of "after" since this motion was most certainly not filed after the pleadings were closed. "For purposes of Rule

12(c), the pleadings are ,,closed only when the parties have filed all of the pleadings Rule 7(a) contemplates." Norcal Gold, Inc. v. Laubly, 543 F.Supp.2d 1132,

1135 (E.D.Cal., 2008). "Pleadings are not closed until at least an answer has been filed. .... Judgment on the pleadings may not be entered where no answer has been filed." Id. (Internal citations omitted). Because there has been no ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, and no determination of whether an Answer will even be required, the pleadings are not closed and a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is improper. Plaintiffs motion should be denied. In order to put a halt to the onslaught of illconceived and baseless motions, Defendants ask that this Court enter an order 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

prohibiting Plaintiff from filing any further motions without first obtaining leave of the court. Moreover, in order to compensate Defendants for the expenses incurred in

responding to this and Plaintiffs other injudicious motions, and as a means of providing a disincentive to Plaintiff for filing further similar motions, Defendants seek an order requiring Plaintiff to pay their attorneys fees incurred in responding to this motion and any other motion filed by Plaintiff without leave of the court. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day of November 2009. MARICOPA COUNTY OFFICE OF GENERAL LITIGATION SERVICES BY: /s/ Sherle R. Flaggman SHERLE R. FLAGGMAN Attorney for Defendants Maricopa Medical Center and Maricopa County Special Health Care District

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

ORIGINAL of the foregoing E-FILED and courtesy copy MAILED this 9th day of November 2009 to: Honorable Mary H. Murguia UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE Sandra Day OConnor U.S. Courthouse 401 W. Washington St., Ste. 525, SPC 53 Phoenix, AZ 85003 and copies MAILED to: John Steven Simon 7000 N. 16th St., Ste. 120 Box #507 Phoenix, AZ 85020 Plaintiff Pro Per Lori V. Berke, Esq. Jody C. Corbett, Esq. BERKE LAW FIRM, PLLC 1601 N. 7th Street, Suite 360 Phoenix, AZ 85006 Attorney for City of Phoenix /s/ Victoria Carbajal
S:\Cases\2009\T\Simon, John - T09-0051\Pleadings\FEDERAL LAWSUIT\Pleadings\Resp.Mtn for Jdgmt on the Pldgs.doc

4