Ordonez v. Canyons School District

Filing 74

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 71 Motion for Extension of Time; and denying 73 Countermotion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse on 6/29/2016. (eat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
SONIA ORDONEZ,

v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF NO. 71) AND
COUNTERMOTION FOR SANCTIONS
(ECF NO. 73)

CANYONS SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Case No. 2:13-cv-245-DAK-EJF

Plaintiff,

Defendant.

District Judge Dale Kimball
Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse

On March 30, 2016, Plaintiff Sonia Ordonez filed a “Motion for Extension of Time to
improve coherence upon Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, as alleged by Defendant.” (ECF No.
71.) In the Motion, Ms. Ordonez requests that the Court grant her a three or four week extension
to improve the coherence of her Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 62), “in virtue of the fact that
the Defendant’s advocate alleges that my arguments against the Defendant’s motion to dismiss
my Amended Complaint . . . are not sufficiently coherent for him.” (Mot. for Extension of Time
1, ECF No. 71.) Ms. Ordonez also states that she continues her search for counsel to take her
case. (Id. at 1–2.)
Within a request to submit the pending motion to dismiss, Defendant Canyons School
District (“Canyons”) opposed Ms. Ordonez’s request for extension of time on several grounds.
(ECF No. 72.) Canyons argues that: (1) the Court gave Ms. Ordonez a full and fair opportunity
to respond to Canyons’ Motion to Dismiss by allowing Ms. Ordonez a period of nearly fifty days
to respond; (2) Ms. Ordonez’s request violates DUCiv R 7-1, which does not provide for an
additional response to a Motion by an opposing party; (3) the Court gave Ms. Ordonez two
extensions already to oppose Canyons’ Motion to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 66 & 68); (4) Ms.
1

Ordonez fails to understand her burden to plead her claims under Iqbal; (5) Ms. Ordonez has
failed to find an attorney and the Court recently denied a request to appoint counsel, (ECF No.
57); and (6) the Court has granted Ms. Ordonez significant leeway to address any pleading
issues, including multiple extensions of time, (ECF Nos. 10, 12, 30, 58, 66, 68), and a prior
attempt to find counsel for her, (ECF No. 57). (ECF No. 72.)
Viewing the circumstances, the Court finds Ms. Ordonez does not state good cause for an
extension of time to further clarify her Amended Complaint. The Court interprets this Motion as
a Motion for Leave to Amend. The Court granted Ms. Ordonez the opportunity to amend her
complaint, (ECF No. 58), and gave her nine months to do so, (cf. ECF Nos. 51 & 62). Ms.
Ordonez offers only that she intends to improve the Amended Complaint’s coherence. This case
is three years old, and the Court has given Ms. Ordonez a significant amount of time to amend
her Complaint. Furthermore, Ms. Ordonez has had nearly three months since filing her Motion
to locate counsel willing to represent her in this case. No counsel has entered an appearance as
of the date of this Order. Ms. Ordonez does not indicate any intention to make substantive
changes to her Amended Complaint. Therefore, the Court DENIES Ms. Ordonez’s Motion for
Leave to Amend. The Court will evaluate the sufficiency of Ms. Ordonez’s amended pleading as
currently filed and in light of the arguments in the pending fully-briefed motion to dismiss. (See
ECF Nos. 62, 64.) If Ms. Ordonez wishes to re-raise the issue after this Court issues a Report
and Recommendation on the Motion to Dismiss, she may do so.
Additionally, on April 21, 2016, Ms. Ordonez filed a countermotion for sanctions against
Canyons in responding to Canyons’ request to submit. (See Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot.
Requesting for Decision & Objection, & Countermot. for Sanctions (“Pl.’s Resp.”), ECF No.
73.) Ms. Ordonez requests the Court sanction Canyons’ counsel for “willfully fail[ing] for third

2

occasion to notify me about his motions filed in the Court,” including the recent request to
submit, in violation of the Court’s order that Canyons serve all motions on Ms. Ordonez by
email. (Id. at 1; see ECF No. 66.) As part of the sanctions, Ms. Ordonez requests the Court
appoint her another pro bono attorney or grant her a longer extension of time, at least eight
weeks, to find an attorney. (Pl.’s Resp. 2–3, 11, ECF No. 73.) Ms. Ordonez also asks the Court
to “compel to the Defendant’s advocate to respond if he admits or disputes the authenticity and
legality of my pieces of evidences.” (Id. at 3.) Canyons did not oppose this countermotion.
As an initial matter, Ms. Ordonez’s countermotion violates DUCiv R 7-1(b)(1)(A), which
states a party may not make a motion within a response or reply but must make such motions in a
separate document. More importantly, however, Ms. Ordonez states no law or justifiable basis
by which the Court might grant her requested sanctions. Therefore, the Court DENIES Ms.
Ordonez’s countermotion for sanctions, (ECF No. 73). Furthermore, the Court will not compel
Canyons to respond as requested. The Court decides a motion to dismiss on the allegations of
the complaint, not on the proof of the claims.
The Court understands Ms. Ordonez’s concern that Canyons failed to inform her of their
filing a request to submit and reminds Canyons that it must serve all motions on Ms. Ordonez by
email. (See ECF No. 66.) The Court does not find a certificate of service attached to Canyons’
request to submit. (See ECF No. 72.) Therefore, the Court ORDERS Canyons to file its
certificate of service or indicate its failure to serve the request to submit within fourteen (14)
days of this Order.
DATED this 29th day of June, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________
EVELYN J. FURSE
United States Magistrate Judge
3