Romo v. United States of America

Filing 86

ORDER ON GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO AMEND/CORRECT AND MOTION TO STRIKE/PRECLUDE. Signed by Judge James A Soto on 7-8-2014. (JAS, rc)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

3
4
Jesus Castro Romo,
5
Plaintiff,
6
vs.
7
8

United States of America,

9

Defendant.

10

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 12-00041-TUC-JAS
ORDER

11
12

Pending before the Court is the Government’s Motion to Amend/Correct its Answer

13

to add the affirmative defense reflected in A.R.S. §12-712(A) and (B). However, a review

14

of the record shows this motion is likely unnecessary, because an Amended Answer was

15

filed on June 7, 2012, which specifically claims the affirmative defense in question at page

16

3, paragraph 8. (Doc. No. 16). The Court notes that the parties appear to have stipulated

17

to allow amended pleadings until July 5, 2012. Joint Report Re: 26f Conference (Doc.

18

No. 15, p. 9, para. 10 (June 4, 2012)). It also appears the scheduling order reflects such

19

stipulated agreement. Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 17, p. 1, para. B). In any case, if the

20

Amended Answer was filed in error or was otherwise not in compliance with court

21

procedures, the record shows that Plaintiff had ample notice of the defense and would not

22

suffer prejudice from its use by the government.
The Government’s Motion to Amend its answer is, therefore, GRANTED. 1

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that Defendant bases its Motion partly on the alleged ambiguity of the statute’s constitutional
infirmity, which was remedied only by recent amendment in 2014. However, the statute’s relevant sections –
subsections (A) and (B) – remain unchanged since 2009 at the latest. See, e.g., Jacobs v. United States, 2013 WL
3282082 *9, n.4 (D.Ariz. 2013).

1
2
3
4
5
6

Also pending is the Government’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Exhibit List and
Preclude the Introduction of Non-Disclosed Exhibits. The Court notes that Plaintiff has
averred that it plans to provide an updated exhibit list and binder to Defendant on July 18,
which cures the bulk of Defendant’s concerns.
That motion is DENIED subject to Plaintiff’s compliance with the Federal Rules of
Evidence for admission of documents at trial.

7
8
9

Dated this 18th day of July, 2014.

10
11
12
13
14

Honorable James A. Soto
United States District Judge

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

2