Hobe v. United States Department of Education et al

Filing 34

ORDER that Plaintiff shall, by September 18, 2009, file a response to themotion to dismiss 32 and a response to the notice of suggestion of bankruptcy 31 . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/4/09. (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. ) United States Department of Education; ) ) Pioneer Recovery; and James Farrar, ) ) Defendants. ) Marc Hobe', a single man,

No. CV-09-405-PHX-DGC ORDER

Plaintiff Marc Hobe' commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint against the United States Department of Education ("DOE"), James Farrar, and Pioneer Recovery on February 27, 2009. Dkt #1. The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Dkt. #29. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 15, 2009. Dkt. #30. On July 29, 2009, DOE and Farrar filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #32. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion as required by the Court's Local Rules of Civil Procedure. See LRCiv 7.2(c), 12.1(b). The Court previously has advised Plaintiff that he must become familiar with, and follow, both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's Local Rules. Dkt. #29 at 8. Local Rule 7.2 provides that if a defendant files a motion to dismiss and the plaintiff does not serve and file the required response, "such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily." LRCiv 7.2(i). The Court will give Plaintiff until September 18, 2009 to file a response to

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

Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. #32). If he fails to do so, the Court will consider summarily granting the motion. Defendants also have filed a notice of suggestion of bankruptcy, asserting that Plaintiff lacks standing to prosecute this matter given his filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection on June 30, 2009. Dkt. #31. The Court will require Plaintiff to file a response to the notice by September 18, 2009. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall, by September 18, 2009, file a response to the motion to dismiss (Dkt. #32) and a response to the notice of suggestion of bankruptcy (Dkt. #31). DATED this 4th day of September, 2009.

-2-