Wyler et al v. Colorado City, Town of et al

Filing 61

ORDER denying the 60 Motion for Damages. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall remain closed. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 10/23/2019. (LFIG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
Marvin Isaac Wyler, Jr., et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-16-08299-PCT-DJH

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the
Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day
Saints,

13
14

Defendant.

15
16

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Damages in this closed

17

case. (Doc. 60). Plaintiffs’ untimely motion is not procedurally supported by any federal

18

or local rule.1 Moreover, while the case was open, Plaintiffs did not establish that they are

19

entitled to the damages requested even though were given multiple opportunities to do so

20

over the life of the case. The motion will be denied.

21

Oral argument was held on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment on February 1,

22

2019. (Doc. 52). At the hearing, Plaintiffs were ordered to file a third supplemental

23

briefing setting forth “the specific amount of damages sought and the legal authority

24

allowing such damages.” (Doc. 54). Plaintiffs filed their third supplemental brief on

25

March 7, 2019, containing 118 pages of additional information, some of which had already

26

been provided. Plaintiff did not request a sum certain amount for alleged physical and

27

emotional distress or for defamation of reputation. (Doc. 58 at 9). On March 13, 2019, the

28

1

Even if Plaintiffs filed their Motion pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(g) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, the
Court doubts they could meet the time requirements therein for doing so.

1

Court entered an Order granting default judgment, but denying the damages sought based

2

on Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to the Court’s specific questions as to proof of damages.

3

(Doc. 58). The case was thereafter closed on March 13, 2019.

4

Plaintiffs’ current motion consists of two pages of arguments, and a two-page

5

declaration from Plaintiffs Wyler and Carstens. (Doc. 60). The motion cites no case law

6

or federal or local rule and contains substantially less information than the previous filings

7

filed months ago. There are also inconsistencies between the amounts requested in the

8

Motion and proposed order, and the amounts testified to by the Plaintiffs in their

9

declarations. For instance, Plaintiff Carstens declares $332,000 in damages based on her

10

2016 earnings, while the motion and proposed order requests $300,000 in damages for

11

Carstens. Plaintiffs have not met their burden of establishing damages in this case pursuant

12

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). Therefore, the motion will be denied and the case will remain

13

closed.

14

Accordingly,

15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Damages (Doc. 60) is

16

denied.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall remain closed.

18

Dated this 23rd day of October, 2019.

19
20
21
22

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-