Free Motion to Strike - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
Suite 1600 3800 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85012-1946 (602) 631-4400 (602) 631-4404 (fax)

Law Offices

Brian Holohan (009124) [email protected] Darrell S. Dudzik (016465) [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) Thomas G. Watkins, III, an ) individual; Skyline ) Manufacturing, Inc., an Arizona ) corporation, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) Ronald Craig Fish, a law corporation, a California corporation,

No. CIV-03-67-PHX-SMM MOTION TO STRIKE

Defendants move the Court to strike Plaintiff's Motion to File Surreply and Plaintiff s Surreply Memorandum for failure to comply with both LRCiv 7.1(b)(1) and this Court s November 26, 2003; February 6, 2004; and February 21, 2006, orders.

LRCiv 7.1(b)(1) provides that all filings shall be "in a fixed pitch type size no smaller than ten (10) pitch (ten letters per inch) or in a proportional font size no smaller than 13 point." This Court has already warned Plaintiff three

times in regarding his failure to comply with the rules:

Case 2:03-cv-00067-SMM

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2006

Page 1 of 3

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

In its November 26, 2003 order, stating: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED than any future failure by Plaintiff to comply with the Local Rules when filing documents with this Court will result in that document being stricken with no leave to amend. (Emphasis added.) In its February 6, 2004 order, stating: On February 2, 2004, Plaintiff filed a Motion to substitute a new Motion for Default Judgment claiming that he mistakenly thought that the Font Size Times New Roman 12 point was in compliance with the local rules. Plaintiff now understands that Font Size Times New Roman 13 is in compliance with the local rules. Giving the Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, his corrected Motion for Default Judgment will be accepted and considered by the Court. In its February 21, 2006 order, stating: The court notes, though, that Plaintiff s seeming inability to comply with the most basic rules of procedure and a clear Court Order is incomprehensible. Compliance with the Local Rules, as well as this Court s Order enforcing those rules, is a paramount importance. Further noncompliance will not be tolerated by the Court. Pursuant to the terms of the Court's orders, Plaintiff's Motion to File Surreply and Plaintiff s Surreply Memorandum should be stricken. DATED this 19th day of May, 2006. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP

By /s/ Darrell S. Dudzik Brian Holohan Darrell S. Dudzik Attorneys for Defendant Watkins . . . . . . 2
Case 2:03-cv-00067-SMM Document 134 Filed 05/19/2006 Page 2 of 3

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on the 19th day of May, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing. Robert Hardy Falk, Esq. Robert Hardy Falk, P.C. Post Office Box 794748 Dallas, Texas 75379 Attorney for Plaintiff [email protected] Michael G. Ackerman, Esq. ACKERMAN, KEVORIKIAN & MASH 2391 The Alameda Suite 100 Santa Clara, CA 95050 Co-counsel for Plaintiff [email protected] I hereby certify that on the 19th day of May, 2006, I served the attached document by mail on the following, who is not a registered participant of the CM/ECF System: By
/s/ Darrell S. Dudzik

3
Case 2:03-cv-00067-SMM Document 134 Filed 05/19/2006 Page 3 of23020436v1 3
827165