Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 40.5 kB
Pages: 3
Date: October 25, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 507 Words, 3,096 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/35161/77.pdf

Download Other Notice - District Court of Arizona ( 40.5 kB)


Preview Other Notice - District Court of Arizona
Andrew Thomas M ARICOPA C OUNTY A TTORNEY Daniel R. Brenden, Bar #016395 Mary C. Cronin, Bar #010816 Division of County Counsel 222 North Central Avenue, Ste. 1100 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2206 (602) 506-8541 Eileen Dennis GilBride, Bar #009220 J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Ste. 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 (602) 263-1700 Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County Department of Transportation, Medlin, Peterson and Ramsey IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Scott M. McNair, Plaintiff, vs. Maricopa County Department of Transportation; Kenneth Medlin; Terry Peterson; Jennipher Ramsey; State of Arizona Personnel Board, Defendants. Defendants notify the Court that they have received Plaintiff's "Motion to Deny Consideration of Defendants' Summary Judgment Reply." Plaintiff's Motion appears to complain that the Court should not have entered its September 30, 2005 Order, which granted Defendants' Motion for Permission to File Summary Judgment Reply. In substance, Plaintiff's Motion is a motion to reconsider such Order. The Court's local rules require motions to reconsider an Order to be filed, if at all, within ten days of the Order that is the subject of the motion. See LRCiv 7.2(g). Because the Court's Order was filed on September 30, 2005, that motion for reconsideration DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF PLAINTIFF'S "MOTION TO DENY CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT REPLY" No. CIV03-2119-PHX-NVW

Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW

Document 77

Filed 10/25/2005

Page 1 of 3

deadline expired on October 10, 2005. Furthermore, the Court's local rules prevent Defendants from filing a substantive response to such motion. See LRCiv 7.2(g). Hence, Defendants are simply notifying the Court that they have received Plaintiff's motion and are prevented by local rule from filing a substantive response to it. DATED this 25th day of October, 2005. J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C.

By /s/ Eileen Dennis GilBride Eileen Dennis GilBride 2901 North Central Ave., Ste. 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Co-Counsel for the County Defendants ORIGINAL electronically filed this 25th day of October, 2005, with: Clerk of the Court U.S. District Court of Arizona 401 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85003 and copy delivered the same day to: Honorable Neil V. Wake United States District Court Judge 401 W. Washington Phoenix, AZ 85003 and copy mailed the same day to: Scott M. M cNair 5401 North Black Canyon Highway Phoenix, Arizona 85015 Plaintiff/appellant Pro Per and copies electronically delivered the same day to: Andrew Thomas M ARICOPA C OUNTY A TTORNEY Daniel R. Brenden, Bar #016395 Mary C. Cronin, Bar #010816 Division of County Counsel 2 Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW Document 77 Filed 10/25/2005 Page 2 of 3

222 North Central Avenue, Ste. 1100 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2206 Attorneys for the County Defendants Craig Mousel Sunberg & Mousel 934 West McDowell Road Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Attorneys for Arizona State Personnel Board /s/ Eileen Dennis GilBride

3 Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW Document 77 Filed 10/25/2005 Page 3 of 3