Williams & Cochrane, LLP v. Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation et al

Filing 244

ORDER Striking Plaintiff's Prior Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Vacating Prior Order; Reinstating Operative Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ( 238 , 235 , 227 ). Any response to ECF No. 235 must be filed by January 3, 2020. Any reply must be filed by January 17, 2020. The hearing on this matter shall be re-scheduled for March 13, 2020 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 2D. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 12/5/19. (dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAMS & COCHRANE, LLP,

Case No.: 17-CV-01436-GPC-MSB

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S
PRIOR MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
ON THE PLEADINGS; VACATING
PRIOR ORDER; REINSTATING
OPERATIVE MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

ROBERT ROSETTE; ROSETTE &
ASSOCIATES, PC; ROSETTE, LLP;
QUECHAN TRIBE OF THE FORT
YUMA INDIAN RESERVATION, a
federally-recognized Indian tribe; and
DOES 1 THROUGH 100,

15
16
17
18

[ECF Nos.: 238, 235, 227]

Defendant.

19
20

This order is necessitated by filing errors occasioned by multiple amended

21

complaints and motions for judgment on the pleadings which misidentify the operative

22

pleadings. The errors that have created confusion started with a motion for judgment on

23

the pleadings (ECF No. 227) filed by Plaintiff Williams & Cochrane, LLP’s (“Plaintiff”)

24

on October 2, 2019 against Defendant Quechan Tribe’s answer to Plaintiff’s first

25

amended complaint and counterclaims which itself was filed on June 21, 2018. ECF No.

26

94. However, as of December 6, 2018, Plaintiff had already filed a third amended

27
28

1
17-CV-01436-GPC-MSB

1

complaint (ECF No. 174) which then led Defendant Quechan Tribe to file an answer to

2

the third amended complaint and counterclaims on December 20, 2018. ECF No. 182.

3

Accordingly, the operative pleading on Defendant Quechan Tribe’s counterclaims as of

4

December 20, 2018 was Defendant Quechan Tribe’s answer to the third amended

5

complaint and counterclaims. Since the motion for judgment on the pleadings attacked a

6

pleading that had been superseded and replaced, the motion for judgment on pleadings

7

was moot. This mistake by counsel than led to the next one.

8
9

Thereafter, on September 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint.
ECF No. 220. On October 8, 2019, Defendant Quechan Tribe filed an answer to

10

plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint and counterclaims. ECF No. 231. On October 22,

11

2019, Plaintiff filed what was titled an amended motion for judgment on the pleadings as

12

to the answer to fourth amended complaint and counterclaims. ECF No. 235. Although

13

this motion was captioned as an amended motion for judgment on the pleadings, it was

14

not an amended motion since Plaintiff had not previously filed a motion for judgment on

15

pleadings as to the answer to the fourth amended complaint and counterclaims.

16

Ultimately, this motion is, in fact, a standalone motion for judgment on the pleadings

17

against Defendant Quechan Tribe’s answer to Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint and

18

counterclaims (ECF No. 231), which was filed on October 8, 2019. Recognizing it as

19

such, the Court will reinstate the motion and treat it as the operative motion for judgment

20

of pleadings on Quechan’s answer to the fourth amended complaint and counterclaims.

21

In sum, the Court hereby DENIES AS MOOT ECF No. 227 (Plaintiff’s motion

22

for judgment on the pleadings against Defendant Quechan Tribe’s answer to Plaintiff’s

23

first amended complaint and counterclaims); WITHDRAWS ECF No. 238 (the Court’s

24

order striking plaintiff’s amended motion for judgment on the pleadings); and

25

REINSTATES ECF No. 235 as the operative motion for judgment on the pleadings

26
27
28

2
17-CV-01436-GPC-MSB

1

against Defendant Quechan Tribe’s answer to Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint and

2

counterclaims.

3
4
5

The Court notes that the above problems could have been avoided with more
attention by Plaintiff’s counsel to the operative pleadings.
Any response to ECF No. 235 must be filed by January 3, 2020. Any reply must

6

be filed by January 17, 2020. The hearing on this matter shall be re-scheduled for

7

March 13, 2020 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 2D.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 5, 2019

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
17-CV-01436-GPC-MSB