Gagan v. Monroe et al

Filing 34

ORDER - Because defendant Monroe has already received the relief which he is seeking in his motion for an extension of time to file an answer (Doc. 18) and in his motion for a stay (Doc. 29), those two motions are moot. Accordingly, ORDERED denying 18 Monroe's Motion for Extension of Time to Answer and 29 Monroe's Motion to Stay (See attached Order for details). Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 12/9/2013.(TLB)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

James Gagan,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

No. CV-13-01113-PHX-RCB
ORDER

v.
James A Monroe, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Currently pending before the court is a motion for an extension of time in which to

16

file an answer filed by defendant James Monroe pro se on October 9, 2013, prior to his

17

retention of counsel. See Mot. (Doc. 18). Also pending is defendant Monroe’s motion

18

for a stay of discovery filed by his attorney on November 11, 2013 (Doc. 29), in which

19

six of the other defendants expressly join (Doc. 30).

20

Plaintiff Gagan has not responded to either motion, and the time to do so has

21

passed.1 More significantly for present purposes, however, is this court’s recent granting

22

of defendant Monroe’s “Motion to Transfer; Motion to Suspend Deadlines and Motion

23

for a Protective Order[.]” See Ord. (Doc. 33).

2

The effect of granting that motion was,

24
25
26
27
28

1

LRCiv 7.2(c) gives the opposing party 14 days after service in which to serve and file
any responsive memorandum. Moreover, a party’s failure to file and serve the required answering
memoranda “may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion[.]” See LRCiv 7.2(i).
2

Defendant Monroe’s pending motion for a stay includes a request for judicial notice,
which his prior motion did not. That request does not pertain to the present action, however, but rather to
the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed in the closely related action, Gagan v.
Monroe, No. CV-99-01427-PHX-RCB (“Gagan I”). That request does not alter the fact that defendant

1

as defendant Monroe sought, to “suspend[] all deadlines, including the Answer

2

deadline[];” and to preclude “any and all discovery, including depositions, until such time

3

as the Motion to Dismiss [in Gagan I] is fully litigated.” See Mot. (Doc. 20) at 1:21-24.

4

Because defendant Monroe has already received the relief which he is seeking in his

5

motion for an extension of time to file an answer (Doc. 18) and in his motion for a stay

6

(Doc. 29), those two motions are moot. Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that

7

defendant Monroe’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer (Doc. 18) and his

8

Motion for a Stay (Doc. 29) are DENIED.3

9

Dated this 9th day of December, 2013.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Monroe’s current motion for a stay is moot.
3

To the extent necessary, the court will address defendant Monroe’s nearly identical
motion for a stay filed in Gagan I, in conjunction with his motion to dismiss also filed therein.

-2-