Western Alliance Bank v. Jefferson

Filing 225

ORDER - Kritza's motion at docket 210 is GRANTED. Jefferson's motion to strike at docket 218 is DENIED, and Jefferson's motion for leave to file a surresponse and controverting statement of facts at docket 218 is GRANTED. Kritza shall file his proposed supplemental statement of facts within two days. (See document for details.) Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 09/30/15. (ATD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Western Alliance Bank, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Richard Jefferson, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) Richard Jefferson, ) ) Counter-claimant, ) ) vs. ) ) Western Alliance Bank, ) ) Counter-defendant. ) ) ) Richard Jefferson, ) ) Third-party plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Theodore Kritza & Michelle Lee ) Kritza, ) ) Third-party defendants. ) ) 2:14-cv-0761 JWS ORDER AND OPINION [Re: Motions at dockets 210, 218] 28 -1- 1 I. MOTIONS PRESENTED 2 At docket 210 third-party defendants Theodore Kritza and Michelle Lee Kritza 3 (collectively, “Kritza”) filed a motion pursuant to LRCiv 7.2 and 56.1 for leave to file a 4 supplemental statement of facts in support of his motion for partial summary judgment. 5 His present motion was filed contemporaneously with his reply in support of his partial 6 summary judgment motion at docket 212. At docket 218 def endant, counter-claimant, 7 and third-party plaintiff Richard Jefferson (“Jefferson”) filed an opposition to Kritza’s 8 motion as well as two cross-motions: one to strike certain portions of Kritza’s reply and 9 another, in the alternative, for leave to file a surresponse and controverting statement of 10 facts. At docket 219 Kritza filed a reply in support of his motion and an opposition to 11 Jefferson’s motions. Jefferson filed replies in support of his motions at dockets 223 and 12 224. Oral argument was not requested and would not assist the court. 13 14 II. BACKGROUND After Kritza filed his partial summary judgment motion at docket 127, the court 15 ruled at docket 183 that Jefferson’s damages disclosure did not comply with Rule 16 26(a)(1) and ordered him to supplement the disclosure to bring it into compliance with 17 the rule. Jefferson supplemented his disclosure on August 14, 2015. 1 Kritza filed his 18 present motion to supplement the statement of facts he filed in support of his partial 19 summary judgment motion with facts from Jefferson’s August 14 disclosure. 20 21 III. DISCUSSION “[N]either the Federal nor the Local Rules of Civil Procedure permit the filing of a 22 supplemental statement of facts.”2 Nevertheless, this case presents an exceptional 23 situation. The district court is obligated to administer the Civil Rules with an eye toward 24 securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every action.3 “The Rules of 25 26 1 27 2 28 3 Doc. 210-1 at 2-6. Moore v. Computer Associates Int’l, Inc., 653 F. Supp. 2d 955, 961 (D. Ariz. 2009). Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. -2- 1 Civil Procedure were adopted in an effort to put an end to the sporting theory of justice”4 2 and instead to “provide for full and fair hearings on the merits”5 when justice so 3 requires. To allow Jefferson to violate these rules with his deficient damages disclosure 4 and then benefit from that violation would be unjust and contrary to the spirit of the 5 rules. Further, Jefferson will not be prejudiced if Krtiza is allowed to supplement his 6 statement of facts because there will be no unfair surprise—the source of the new facts 7 is Jefferson himself—and Jefferson will have the opportunity to file a surresponse. 8 9 IV. CONCLUSION Based on the preceding discussion, Kritza’s motion at docket 210 is GRANTED; 10 Jefferson’s motion to strike at docket 218 is DENIED; and Jefferson’s motion for leave 11 to file a surresponse and controverting statement of facts at docket 218 is GRANTED. 12 Kritza shall file his proposed supplemental statement of facts within two days. The 13 court will entertain a surresponse from Jefferson filed within seven days of Kritza’s 14 filing, provided that any supplementary controverting statement of facts may not exceed 15 3 pages and the related memorandum may not exceed 3 pages (excluding the pages 16 containing the case heading). 17 DATED this 30th day of September, 2015. 18 19 /s/ 20 JOHN W. SEDWICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 4 24 25 26 27 28 Cent. Distributors, Inc. v. M. E. T., Inc., 403 F.2d 943, 946 (5th Cir. 1968). See also Roscoe Pound, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice, 29 REP. A.B.A. 395, 404-05 (1906), reprinted in 35 F.R.D. 273, 281 (1964) (stating that the sporting theory of justice “leads counsel to forget that they are officers of the court and to deal with the rules of law and procedure exactly as the professional football coach with the rules of the sport. It leads to exertion to ‘get error into the record’ rather than to dispose of the controversy finally and upon its merits.”). 5 Middle Atl. Utilities Co. v. S. M. W. Dev. Corp., 392 F.2d 380, 386 (2d Cir. 1968). -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?