Gatlin v. Guglielmo & Associates PLLC et al

Filing 21

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED no later than March 19, 2025, plaintiff shall file a response to the motion to dismiss or a statement that he does not oppose dismissal of Guglielmo & Associates. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Strike (Doc. 19 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. See attached Order for complete details. Signed by Judge Krissa M Lanham on 3/7/2025. (NSH)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Jerome Gatlin,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

Guglielmo & Associates PLLC, et al.,

13

Defendants.

No. CV-24-03143-PHX-KML
ORDER

14
15

Plaintiff Jerome Gatlin filed this suit against defendants Guglielmo & Associates

16

PLLC and LVNV Funding LLC. On January 31, 2025, defendant LVNV filed an answer.

17

(Doc. 12.) On February 10, 2025, Gatlin filed a document that appears to have been

18

intended as a motion to strike portions of that answer. (Doc. 19.) On February 11, 2025,

19

Guglielmo & Associates filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 15.)

20

Finally, on February 21, 2025, LVNV filed an amended answer. (Doc. 20.)

21

Gatlin did not respond to the motion to dismiss filed by Guglielmo & Associates.

22

Local Rule 7.2(i) allows the court to deem Gatlin’s failure to respond “a consent to the . . .

23

granting of the motion.” To ensure Gatlin wishes to have the motion granted, he is required

24

to file either a response to the motion or a statement consenting to the dismissal of

25

Guglielmo & Associates. In the future, however, the court will not grant Gatlin similar

26

guidance and Gatlin must comply with applicable deadlines. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d

27

565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that

28

govern other litigants.”), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d

1

896 (9th Cir. 2012).

2

LVNV was entitled to amend its answer as a matter of right. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).

3

And LVNV’s amended answer renders moot Gatlin’s motion to strike aimed at the earlier

4

answer. The motion to strike, therefore, is denied.

5

Accordingly,

6

IT IS ORDERED no later than March 19, 2025, plaintiff shall file a response to

7

the motion to dismiss or a statement that he does not oppose dismissal of Guglielmo &

8

Associates.

9
10
11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Strike (Doc. 19) is DENIED AS
MOOT.
Dated this 7th day of March, 2025.

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

-2-