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)

Download PDF
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 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-

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?