Opinion
CV-22-02072-PHX-JAT
04-05-2024
Levi Rosenbaum, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America NA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Joint Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response and Proposed Third Amended Complaint (“PTAC”). (Doc. 46). Plaintiff has not responded. The Court now rules.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Response, (Doc. 44), to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 35), and attached a PTAC per the Court's February 21, 2024, Order at Doc. 42. In that Order, the Court instructed Plaintiff that if he wishes to file a third amended complaint, he should address how that amended complaint would cure the deficiencies in his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (See Doc. 42 at 2). Defendants now move to strike Plaintiff's Response and the PTAC.
II. DISCUSSION
In their Motion to Strike, Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Local Rules in his Response and attached proposed third amended complaint. (Doc. 46). Specifically, Defendants state: the Local Rules require filings to be in the following format (LRCiv 7.1(b)) and length (LRCiv 7.2(e)):
1. They shall be double-spaced and, more specifically, “they shall not be singlespaced except for footnotes and indented quotations”); Plaintiff's Response is single-spaced;
2. They shall not exceed 28 lines per page; Plaintiff's Response is approximately 44 lines per page;
3. They shall be in a font size no small than 13 point; and Plaintiff's Response is, generally, 11 point (Calibri) font;
4. Responsive memoranda may not exceed 17 pages; Plaintiff's Response is 34 pages.(Doc. 46 at 2).
A party may “seek[] to strike any part of a filing or submission on the ground that it is prohibited (or not authorized) by a statute, rule, or court order.” LRCiv 7.2(m)(1).
After reviewing Plaintiff's Response and PTAC, the Court agrees that Plaintiff's filings do not comply with the Local Rules in the ways stated above in Defendants' Motion. Beyond what Defendants point out above, the PTAC also does not comply with Local Rules 7.1 or 15.1(a). The Court reminds Plaintiff for a final time that despite being a pro se litigant, he still must comply with the Local Rules. Ghazali v. Morgan, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (pro se litigants “are bound by the rules of procedure”). The Court hyperlinked the Local Rules in its last Order but will do so again here. (See Doc. 42 at 2, n.1). Per the Court's last order, Plaintiff must substantively respond to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, (Doc. 35, 36), in a manner that complies with the Local Rules. Additionally, if Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint, he must explain to the Court how his proposed complaint will cure any deficiencies in the SAC and attach a proposed amended complaint, that complies with the Local Rules. Failure by Plaintiff to substantively respond in an acceptable format will result in dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
For Plaintiff's reference: Local Rules of Practice and Procedure of the United states District Court for the District of Arizona.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Joint Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response and Proposed Third Amended Complaint, (Doc. 46), is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall STRIKE Plaintiff's Response, (Doc. 44), and Plaintiff Proposed Third Amended Complaint, (Doc. 44-1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days to resubmit his response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 35), in a form that complies with the Court's February 21, 2024 Order, this Order, and the Local Rules.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants will have seven (7) days after Plaintiff serves his response to file a reply.