Opinion
No. CV 11-1905-PHX-JAT
04-18-2012
Mena Bishara, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Bank Home Mortgage; a Corporation MERS; US Bank NA; Does I through X inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 19) and Motion to Supplement Objection To Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20). The Supplemental Objection to the Motion to Dismiss is improper for several reasons. First, the Motion to Dismiss has been fully briefed since October 24, 2011. Second, the arguments made in the Supplement are not properly made at this time as they appear to assert new causes of action that were not included in the original Complaint - Plaintiff must wait for the Court to rule on his Motion to Amend before proceeding further with new causes of action. Finally, Local Rule 7.2 allows for a Motion, a Response, and a Reply. See LRCiv. 7.2. No further objections or replies are provided for and it is not the Court's practice to allow a never-ending briefing schedule, especially where a sur-reply is made more than five months after briefing has closed.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Objection to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20) is denied.
Further, oral argument on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) is currently set for April 30, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. At that oral argument, the Parties should be also be prepared to argue Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. 20).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants shall respond to the Motion to Amend by April 24, 2012 and Plaintiff shall file a reply in support of his Motion to Amend by April 27, 2012.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED setting oral argument on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 19) for 4/30/2012 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 503, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge James A. Teilborg. See Doc. 18 for additional details.
______________________
James A. Teilborg
United States District Judge