Camboni v. Brnovich et al

Filing 43

ORDER that Plaintiff's filing, (Doc. 42 ), is STRICKEN, to the extent that the filing serves as a response to 28 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Joinder in State Bar of Arizona's Motion to Dismiss. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying 42 Plaintiff's Motion for More Definite Statement. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 5/17/16.(LSP)

WO
1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Anthony Camboni,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-15-02538-PHX-JAT

Mark Brnovich, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Anthony Camboni’s Motion to Strike and

16

Motion for a More Definite Statement. (Doc. 42). Having read Plaintiff’s filing, the Court

17

understands it to be a response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Joinder in State Bar

18

of Arizona’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 28), as well as a motion seeking independent

19

relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e),(f).

20

To the extent that Plaintiff’s filing serves as a response to Defendants’ motion to

21

dismiss, (Doc. 28), it is stricken for failing to comply with the Local Rules of Civil

22

Procedure. LRCiv. 7.2(e)(1) mandates that “[u]nless otherwise permitted by the Court,”

23

Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ motion “may not exceed seventeen (17) pages.”

24

Plaintiff has not sought leave from the Court to file a response in excess of the allotted

25

page limit. Accordingly, the Court strikes Plaintiff’s filing to the extent that it serves as a

26

response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

27

Plaintiff’s filing also, however, appears to request independent relief pursuant to

28

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. Plaintiff seeks to strike Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Joinder in

1

State Bar of Arizona’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 42 at 3), or—in the alternative—seeks a

2

more definite statement. (Id. at 2). Both avenues of requested relief relate to the

3

representation of certain Defendants by counsel Brian Bergin. Plaintiff asserts that Mr.

4

Bergin “has produced no facts, evidence, or testimony” that would prove “Attorney

5

Bergin represents the aforementioned Defendants.” (Id.). Thus, according to Plaintiff,

6

Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be stricken. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff has cited

7

nothing suggesting that Defendants cannot obtain counsel to represent them in this

8

matter. Moreover, Plaintiff has cited nothing to suggest that counsel’s Notice of

9

Appearance and Waiver of Service, (Doc. 6), filed on January 8, 2016, is somehow

10

defective or insufficient. The Court notes that this is not the first time Plaintiff has

11

attacked Mr. Bergin’s representation of Defendants. The Court’s March 17, 2016, Order

12

rejected Plaintiff’s unsupported argument that Mr. Bergin had failed to present sufficient

13

facts “concerning his representation” (Doc. 18 at 3 n.3). Plaintiff, here, again attacks Mr.

14

Bergin’s representation without any evidence to support his position. The Court rejects

15

Plaintiff’s conclusory argument, and absent some form of supporting evidence, the Court

16

will not entertain this argument in the future. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and Motion for

17

a More Definite Statement, (Doc. 42), are both denied.

18

Plaintiff has asked the Court to set a hearing for oral argument on the

19

aforementioned issues. (Doc. 42 at 3). The Court will deny this request. Plaintiff has

20

submitted a memorandum discussing the law and facts in support of his position, and oral

21

argument will not aide the Court’s decisional process. See e.g., Partridge v. Reich, 141

22

F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998); Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific. Dev.

23

Malibu Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991). Moreover, Plaintiff will be given the

24

opportunity to re-file a compliant response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

25

Plaintiff has through the end of Friday, May 27, 2016, to file a response to

26

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Joinder in State Bar of Arizona’s Motion to Dismiss,

27

(Doc. 28), that is compliant with this District’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court

28

reminds Plaintiff that his response may not exceed seventeen (17) pages, LRCiv.

-2-

1

7.2(e)(1), and notifies Plaintiff that this will be the last opportunity to file a response to

2

the pending Motion to Dismiss that complies with the Local Rules. Failure to “conform

3

in all substantial respects with the requirements of this Local Rule” will be deemed to be

4

consent to the “granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion

5

summarily.” LRCiv. 7.2(i).

6

For the aforementioned reasons,

7

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s filing, (Doc. 42), is STRICKEN, to the extent

8

that the filing serves as a response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Joinder in State

9

Bar of Arizona’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 28).

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s filing, (Doc. 42), is DENIED, to

11

the extent that it seeks a more definite statement or to strike Defendants’ motion to

12

dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12.

13

Dated this 17th day of May, 2016.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-