Batchan v. Glendale, City of et al

Filing 30

ORDER denying 22 Plaintiff's Motion for oral argument and notice of intention to file amended complaint in lieu of response to defendant's answer to plaintiff's complaint and first amended complaint. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 2/15/12.(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
City of Glendale; Westgate Property LLC;)
Coyotes Newco LLC; Arena Newco LLC;)
David Burke; Sam Cornejo; Unknown)
)
Hawkins,
)
)
Defendants.
)
John W. Batchan,
9
10
11
12
13
14

CV 12-00038-PHX-FJM
ORDER

15
The court has before it plaintiff’s motion for oral argument and notice of intention to
16
file amended complaint in lieu of response to defendant’s answer to plaintiff’s complaint and
17
first amended complaint (doc. 22), defendants Coyotes Newco, LLC and Arena Newco,
18
LLC's response (doc. 23), and plaintiff's reply (doc. 24).
19
Plaintiff is self employed as a ticket reseller. He filed this action in the Superior Court
20
of Arizona in Maricopa County in December 2011, alleging that defendants committed
21
various torts and discriminated against him on the basis of race by banning him from the
22
Jobing.com Arena. He amended his complaint on December 16, 2011. Defendants removed
23
this action in January 2012 (doc. 1). Since then, plaintiff has filed a number of documents.
24
This includes a “motion argreement [sic] with opposing party on transfer case to district
25
court,” (doc. 12), a “response to adverse party of removal to federal court (all defendants
26
allow discriminatory practices by their employees towards African American
27
entrepreneurs),” (doc. 13), a “notice of pending motion” to submit a response to plaintiff’s
28

1

requests for admission and amended complaint, (doc. 16), and a notice that “defendants

2

refuse to respond to pleadings (defendant sending invitations to plaintiff allowing plaitiff

3

[sic] to come on Arena Newco, LLC proerty [sic] also Coyote Newco, LLC inviting me to

4

buy tickets threw [sic] their box. Defendants are in violation of harassing plaintiff) trying

5

once again to trick me on to [sic] property so I can get arrested with discriminatory

6

invitation” (doc. 20). Most recently, plaintiff a notice titled “plaintiff response to unfair

7

arrangements for a Rule 26(f) meeting/conference” (doc. 25), where plaintiff complains that

8

defendant wants to rush ahead with an “unfair” phone conference. These types of filings are

9

not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

10

In the instant motion, plaintiff complains that defendants have not answered his

11

amended complaint and asks the court to “witness” certain exhibits which purportedly

12

establish defendants’ harassment of plaintiff. It is unclear exactly what plaintiff is asking the

13

court to do. To the extent that plaintiff moves to amend his complaint, he has not complied

14

with Rule 15, Fed. R. Civ. P. and LRCiv 15.1.

15

A review of plaintiff's amended complaint and his latest filings suggests that plaintiff

16

would benefit from a lawyer. If he does not have one, he may wish to contact the Lawyer

17

Referral Service of the Maricopa County Bar Association at 602-257-4434. Regardless of

18

whether plaintiff litigates this action pro se or represented by counsel, we remind him that

19

he must comply with all federal and local rules of civil procedure. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46

20

F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff is especially directed to Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P., which

21

governs all pleadings, motions, and other papers filed with this court.

22

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s motion for oral argument and notice of

23

intention to file amended complaint in lieu of response to defendant’s answer to plaintiff’s

24

complaint and first amended complaint (doc. 22).

25

DATED this 15th day of February, 2012.

26
27
28
-2-