CML-AZ Blue Ridge LLC et al v. Sterling Plaza West LLC et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying defendant/third party plaintiff's 15 Motion to modify the briefing schedule. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 06/28/11.(ESL)

1

WO

2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

CML-AZ BLUE RIDGE, LLC, a Florida )
)
limited liability company,
)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
v.
)
)
STERLING PLAZA WEST, LLC, an
Arizona limited liability company, et al., )
)
)
Defendants/Third-Party
)
Plaintiffs.
)
)
v.
)
)
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
)
CORPORATION,
)
)
Third-Party Defendant.
)
)
)

No. CV-11-1122-PHX-FJM
ORDER

19
20
The court has before it defendant/third party plaintiff Sterling Plaza West LLC’s
21
(“Sterling Plaza”) “Motion To Modify Briefing Schedule Re: FDIC’s Motion To Strike Or
22
Sever Third Party Complaint” (doc. 15). Third party defendant FDIC removed this action
23
on June 3, 2011. On June 13, 2011, third party defendant FDIC moved to strike or sever
24
Sterling Plaza’s third party complaint against defendant FDIC (doc. 6). On June 27, 2011,
25
Sterling Plaza moved to remand this action (doc. 14). Sterling Plaza requests that we
26
postpone briefing on defendant FDIC’s motion to strike until after we resolve Sterling
27
Plaza’s motion to remand.
28

1

There is not good cause to modify the briefing schedule. Sterling Plaza’s motion to

2

remand may not be fully briefed for almost a month. The court will then need time to review

3

and rule on the motion. If we deny the motion to remand, the parties will then be entitled to

4

several more weeks to complete briefing on the motion to strike/sever, resulting in a potential

5

delay of several months in resolving the motion. In the event that we grant the motion to

6

remand, we do not believe that the timely briefing of the motion to strike/sever will entail

7

significant duplicative work. Sterling Plaza notes that the parties completed briefing on

8

plaintiff CML’s motion to strike in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County.

9

Sterling Plaza argues that different standards would govern the motion in this court. While

10

this may be true, certainly much of the substance of Sterling Plaza’s response here would be

11

similar to its state court briefing. Any limited additional research required does not justify

12

the lengthy delay that Sterling Plaza requests.

13
14
15

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendant/third party plaintiff’s motion to
modify the briefing schedule (doc. 15).
DATED this 28th day of June, 2011.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-