Brown v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 43

ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for summary denial or, in the alternative, to strike Defendant's summary judgment motion without an opportunity to file a motion compliant with the page limitation (Doc. 42 ) is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 41 ) is struck. Defendant may file a motion for summary judgment that complies with the page limitation by 2/10/2025. Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 1/27/2025. (KJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Nicole Brown,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company,

13
14

No. CV-24-00368-PHX-DWL
ORDER

Defendant.

15

Under the scheduling order, the deadline for filing dispositive motions was January

16

24, 2025. (Doc. 15.) On that date, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc.

17

41.) The motion is 34 pages long, exclusive of attachments. (Id.)

18

Plaintiff has now filed a motion to summarily deny or strike Defendant’s motion

19

because it exceeds the applicable 17-page limit. (Doc. 42.) Plaintiff also seeks an award

20

of attorneys’ fees. (Id.)

21

On the one hand, Plaintiff is correct that Defendant’s motion is overlong. The

22

Court’s case management order suspends LRCiv 56.1 except for subsection (d). (Doc. 15

23

at 5.) As a result, LRCiv 56.1(a), which requires a separate statement of facts, is not in

24

force. The case management order further specifies that “the parties may not file separate

25

statements of facts or separate controverting statements of facts, and instead must include

26

all facts in the motion, response, or reply itself.” (Doc. 15 at 5.) Under LRCiv 7.2(e),

27

“[u]nless otherwise permitted by the Court, a motion including its supporting memorandum

28

. . . may not exceed seventeen (17) pages, exclusive of attachments and any required

1

statement of facts.” Because a statement of facts is not required (and is expressly banned),

2

the 17-page limitation is inclusive of any factual narrative included within the motion.

3

On the other hand, Plaintiff’s requested forms of relief—“Plaintiff requests that the

4

Court on an expedited basis: (a) grant summary disposition denying Defendant’s motion

5

for summary judgment; (b) in the alternative, strike Defendant’s motion for summary

6

judgment without leave to re-file because the deadline has passed”—are disproportionately

7

harsh and would result in a windfall to Plaintiff. The better solution is simply to strike the

8

pending summary judgment motion and give Defendant a two-week extension to file a

9

renewed motion that complies with the now-clarified page limit.

10

Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees is denied for similar reasons. Although

11

Plaintiff’s interpretation of the page limit is correct, this does not mean that Defendant’s

12

competing interpretation was so incorrect as to warrant fee-shifting (nor does Plaintiff

13

identify a rule or authority that would justify fee-shifting under these circumstances).

14

Accordingly,

15

IT IS ORDERED that:

16

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary denial or, in the alternative, to strike

17

Defendant’s summary judgment motion without an opportunity to file a motion compliant

18

with the page limitation (Doc. 42) is granted in part and denied in part.

19

2.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 41) is struck.

20

3.

Defendant may file a motion for summary judgment that complies with the

21
22

page limitation by February 10, 2025.
Dated this 27th day of January, 2025.

23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-