Western Alliance Bank v. Jefferson
Filing
227
ORDER that Jefferson's motion to strike at docket 182 is GRANTED; Alliance's filing at docket 177 is hereby stricken. Further, the court will consider or disregard Jefferson's filing at docket 166 consistent with the authority discussed above. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 10/7/15.(KGM)
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: Motion at docket 182]
28
-1-
1
I. MOTION PRESENTED
2
At docket 182 defendant, counter-claimant, and third-party plaintiff Richard
3
Jefferson (“Jefferson”) moves to strike the filing of plaintiff and counter-defendant
4
Western Alliance Bank (“Alliance”) at docket 177. Alliance opposes at docket 189.
5
Jefferson replies at docket 200. Oral argument was not requested and would not assist
6
the court.
7
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
8
9
Local Rule of Civil Procedure (“Local Rule”) 7.2(m) governs motions to strike. It
provides in pertinent part that a motion to strike may be filed “if it seeks to strike any
10
part of a filing or submission on the ground that it is prohibited (or not authorized) by a
11
statute, rule, or court order.” 1 The decision to grant or deny a motion to strike is within
12
the court’s discretion. 2
13
III. DISCUSSION
Alliance filed a motion for summary judgment3 supported by a fourteen-page,
14
15
sixty-paragraph separate statement of facts (“SOF”).4 Jefferson filed an opposition to
16
the motion5 supported by a 140-page document that contains his controverting
17
statement of facts (“CSOF”) and additional statement of facts (“ASOF”).6 Alliance then
18
filed a reply7 and a separate response to Jefferson’s CSOF and ASOF. 8 Alliance’s
19
1
LRCiv 7.2(m)(1).
20
2
Spencer v. Stapler, No. 04-1532 PHX SMM, 2006 WL 2052704, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 21,
21
22
2006).
3
23
Doc. 131.
4
24
25
Doc. 134.
5
Doc. 163.
26
6
27
7
28
8
Doc. 166.
Doc. 174.
Doc. 177.
-2-
1
separate response is the subject of Jefferson’s present motion to strike. In it, Alliance
2
(1) objects to facts set out in Jefferson’s ASOF as being “repetitive;” (2) responds to
3
facts set out in Jefferson’s ASOF that it concedes are not repetitive; and (3) responds to
4
Jefferson’s evidentiary objections to its own SOF.9
5
Jefferson argues that Alliance’s response is unauthorized by the Local Rules.
6
He is correct. If the moving party wishes to respond to a non-moving party’s statement
7
of facts or evidentiary objections, it may do so in its reply memorandum—not in a
8
separate responsive memorandum.10 Because Alliance’s separate memorandum
9
responds to Jefferson’s ASOF and the evidentiary objections in Jefferson’s CSOF, it is
10
11
unauthorized and Jefferson’s motion to strike will be granted.
The court notes that Jefferson’s filing at docket 166 also violates the Local
12
Rules. Local Rule 7.2 permits a non-moving party to include in its controverting
13
statement of facts objections to the moving party’s statement of facts, but such
14
objections “must be stated summarily without argument.”11 Argument belongs in the
15
non-moving party’s opposition brief, within the page limit.12 Jefferson’s 103-page CSOF
16
flaunts this rule; it is filled with objections accompanied by explanation and argument.
17
Many of Jefferson’s objections span multiple pages.13 Jefferson’s arguments in support
18
of his evidentiary objections are improper and will not be considered by the court.
19
20
21
9
Doc. 177.
22
10
23
24
25
See B2B CFO Partners, LLC v. Kaufman, 856 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1086-87 (D. Ariz.
2012) (“The Local Rules do not contemplate . . . filing a separate response to the non-moving
party’s statement of facts. ”); LRCiv 7.2(m)(2) (“Any response to an objection must be included
in the responding party’s reply memorandum for the underlying motion and may not be
presented in a separate responsive memorandum.”).
26
11
27
12
28
13
LRCiv 7.2(m)(2).
Marceau v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 618 F. Supp. 2d 1127, 1141 (D. Ariz. 2009).
See, e.g., Doc. 166. at 38-41, 71-75.
-3-
1
2
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the preceding discussion, Jefferson’s motion to strike at docket 182 is
3
GRANTED; Alliance’s filing at docket 177 is hereby stricken. Further, the court will
4
consider or disregard Jefferson’s filing at docket 166 consistent with the authority
5
discussed above.
6
DATED this 7th day of October, 2015.
7
8
/s/
9
JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
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?