Free Order on Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 C. Miles et. al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 On September 7, 2006, this Court issued an order advising the parties that due to the 15 age of this case (and the significant difficulties in serving Defendant Scalet), the Court would 16 17 November 15, 2006, Defendant Scalet filed a motion for summary judgment. 18 In the same September 7, 2006 order, the Court set a deadline to file the final pretrial 19 paperwork (December 4, 2006), a date for the final pretrial conference (January 8, 2007) and 20 advised the parties that they should confer and be prepared to pick a trial date in either 21 January or February of 2007. The summary judgment motion filed November 15, 2006 22 would not by fully briefed until January 5, 2007. Obviously, this is inconsistent with the trial 23 schedule set by the Court. 24 Further, as alluded to in the September 7 order, the Court is proceeding with this firm 25 trial schedule because this case was filed September 17, 2003, and therefore will have been 26 27
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Carlos Arthur Powell, Plaintiff, vs.

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

No. CV 03-1819-PHX-JAT ORDER

not entertain another round of dispositive motions.1

Notwithstanding this order, on

28

All defendants have previous filed either a dismissal motion or a summary judgment

motion.
Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT Document 211 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 1 of 2

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

pending approximately 3.5 years at the point the Court has set the case for trial. A significant portion of this delay stems from the fact that someone "signed" for service on Scalet, but that person was not authorized to accept service. Then, the remaining Defendants avowed that they did not have an address for Scalet. Further, the remaining Defendants attempted to obtain an address for Scalet, but he would not return their calls. Doc. #139. Thus, it took until May of 2006 and multiple orders of this Court to accomplish service on Scalet. As a result, the Court is unsympathetic to the fact that Scalet is having to proceed on a very expedited pace because his late arrival into the case is largely attributable to him. Based on the foregoing and consistent with the September 7, 2006 order, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Scalet's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #203) is denied without prejudice to Defendant Scalet asserting any of the defenses or other theories raised in his motion in the proposed final pretrial order and on motions for judgment as a matter of law, and/or at trial. DATED this 20th day of November, 2006.

-2Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT Document 211 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 2 of 2