Woods v. Taylor

Full title: Jonathan B. Woods and Kerrie Woods, Plaintiff, v. Taylor, Bean Whitaker…

Court: United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Oct 12, 2011

No. CV-10-723-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz. Oct. 12, 2011)

Opinion

No. CV-10-723-PHX-GMS.

October 12, 2011

ORDER

G. SNOW, District Judge

Pending before this Court are: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney General Intervention, Doc. 52; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Order, Doc. 53; (3) Request for Judicial Notice, Doc. 55; and (4) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Amended Complaint, Doc. 57. Each of these motions is denied.

The Attorney General of the State of Arizona, upon being served with Plaintiff's Motion for Intervention, Doc. 52, has explicitly declined to intervene. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion, to the extent it requires further ruling by this Court, is denied.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Order, Doc 53, does not meet the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 by raising any sufficient reason on which the Court should relieve the Plaintiffs from its previous Order. Plaintiffs merely seek to reargue the determinations made by the Court in its ruling on the motions to dismiss. The motion is, therefore, denied.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint is both futile, and procedurally improper in light of the Court's dismissal with prejudice of the claims against certain Defendants. The Court has previously given Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, which was unavailing. See Doc. 23. In any case, the futility of Plaintiffs' attempt to reassert its arguments in the form of a request for injunctive relief has only been underlined by the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Cervantes v. Countrywide, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 3911031 (9th Cir. Sep. 7, 2011). Plaintiffs' Motion is therefore, denied.

In light of Cervantes and the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' other post-dismissal motions, Plaintiffs' request to the Court to take judicial notice of materials is moot. Even were the Court to take judicial notice of the documents, it does not appear that such notice would change the Court's previous determinations. The request for judicial notice, Doc. 55, is, therefore, denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney General Intervention, Doc. 52, is DENIED.

2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Order, Doc. 53, is DENIED.

3. Request for Judicial Notice, Doc. 55, is DENIED.

4. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Amended Complaint, Doc. 57, is DENIED.