Garcia v. Glendale Police Department et al
Filing
92
ORDER - denying 90 Plaintiff's Motion for Criminal Charges: denying 91 Plaintiff's Motion to File 2nd Amended Complaint; denying as moot 85 Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Counsel; denying as moot 84 Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Public Interest Awareness. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 11/25/13.(TLB)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Robert A. Garcia,
CV 11-2260-PHX-JAT
Plaintiff,
10
ORDER
11
v.
12
Glendale Police Department et, al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
Pending before this Court are Robert A. Garcia’s (the “Plaintiff’s”) (1) Motion to
16
Disqualify Counsel (Doc. 80), (2) Motion for Public Interest Awareness (Doc. 81), (3)
17
Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 82), (4) Motion to Correct Clerical Errors (Doc. 83), (5)
18
Motion to File Criminal Charges; and (6) Motion to File Second Amended Complaint.
19
Robert Solomon (the “Defendant”) filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion to
20
Disqualify Counsel (Doc. 85) and a Motion to Strike (Doc. 84) Plaintiff’s Motion for
21
Public Interest Awareness.
22
First, after Defendant’s attorney filed a Notice of Association on October 18,
23
2013, Plaintiff moved to disqualify counsel. (Docs. 76, 80). Plaintiff does not cite any
24
law or state any facts supporting grounds for relief. Defendant’s counsel complied with
25
the Local Rule 83.3 to associate, and as a result, there is no reason to disqualify counsel.
26
See LRCiv 83.3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue seems to allege that the Judge is in
27
some way conflicted because certain defendants were dismissed from the case. (Doc. 82
28
at 2–3). However, the allegations are unfounded based on the legitimate legal reasons for
1
dismissing certain claims and defendants. (Doc. 17). Finally, Plaintiff’s Motion to
2
Amend is denied because it is untimely and would prejudice Defendant at this late stage
3
of the case. See Western Shoshone Nat. Council v. Molini, 951 F.2d 200, 204 (9th Cir.
4
1991). Moreover, procedurally it fails to comply with LRCiv. 15.1, and is alternatively
5
denied for this reason.
6
Plaintiff’s remaining Motions are void of legal bases to explain or justify
7
Plaintiff’s claimed entitlement to relief. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motions do not warrant relief,
8
and the Motions are denied. Based on these denials, the Defendant’s Motions to Strike
9
(Docs. 84, 85) are moot.
10
The parties are admonished to continue preparing a joint Proposed Final Pretrial
11
Order consistent with this Court’s order at Doc. 69. The Court again reminds Plaintiff of
12
the warning to comply with the Court’s Order:
13
Plaintiff is cautioned that if defense counsel files a motion to
dismiss for failure to comply with a court order and/or failure
to prosecute, with an accompanying affidavit indicating that
Plaintiff will not meet and confer, or will not participate in
the preparation of the joint final pretrial order, THE COURT
WILL DISMISS THIS CASE WITHOUT FURTHER
WARNINGS OR EXTENSIONS.
14
15
16
17
18
19
(Doc. 77 at 3).
20
Based on the foregoing,
21
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel (Doc. 80) is
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Public Interest
Awareness (Doc. 81) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc.
82) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct Clerical Errors
(Doc. 83) is denied.
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Criminal Charges (Doc.
90) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to File 2nd Amended
Complaint (Doc. 91) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
Motion to Disqualify Counsel (Doc. 85) is denied as moot.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 84)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Public Interest Awareness is denied as moot.
Dated this 25th day of November, 2013.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?