Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Pestube Systems, Inc., 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Further, the Court is unclear as to Pestube's request. To the extent that Pestube seeks leave to file individual motions for summary judgment on each count, as opposed to a single, consolidated motion for summary judgment on all counts, the Court will entertain such a request. However, in no event will the Court entertain a request to allow multiple motions for summary judgment on the same counts, in effect creating a second round of motions for summary judgment. For example, the Court may permit a party to file separate motions for summary judgment on counts A and B, but will not permit a party to move for summary judgment on an issue or element of count A, and then re-move for summary judgment on count A based on that ruling. Should Pestube re-file its Motion, it must clarify its request in light of the foregoing.
Case 2:04-cv-00608-JAT Document 64 Filed 08/08/2005 Page 1 of 2
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

HomeTeam Pest Defense, LLC, Plaintiff, vs.

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

No. CV 04-0608-PHX-JAT ORDER

Pending before the Court is Pestube System Inc.'s "Motion for an Order Allowing it to File More Than One Motion for Summary Judgment," (Doc. #44). Because Pestube failed to comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(b)(2), the Court will deny Pestube's Motion.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Pestube's "Motion for an Order Allowing it to File More Than One Motion for Summary Judgment" (Doc. #44) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DATED this 8th day of August, 2005.

-2Case 2:04-cv-00608-JAT Document 64 Filed 08/08/2005 Page 2 of 2