Opinion
CV-23-02166-PHX-JJT
02-14-2024
Twin City Fire Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v. Unknown Party, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
HONORABLE JOHN J. TUCHI, UNITED STATES/DISTRICT JUDGE
At issue are two Motions: pro se Defendant Victor Elias Zamora, Jr.'s “Motion to Respond Plaintiff's Declaratory Judgment Complaint” (Doc. 26), and Zamora, Jr.'s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 27).
According to the Complaint (Doc. 1), Defendant Zamora, Jr. was the principal of Defendant Legacy Academy, a private school in Mesa, Arizona; Defendant Victor Elias Zamora, Sr. was the Chief Executive Officer of the school; and Defendant Carmen Zamora is his wife. In a state court criminal proceeding, Zamora, Jr. was charged with sexual conduct with a minor in conjunction with the sexual abuse of four minor students at Legacy Academy-Students A, B, C, and D. Zamora, Jr. pled guilty and is currently incarcerated for the crimes.
The identities of the minor children are protected both in the underlying state court actions and this action.
In a separate state court civil action, the four students seek damages against Zamora, Jr., Zamora, Sr. and his wife Carmen, and Legacy Academy. Plaintiff Twin City Fire Insurance Co. issued a Business Liability Insurance Policy to Legacy Academy that was effective from 2017 to 2021. In the present lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Policy does not provide coverage-neither a duty to defend nor indemnify-to the school or the Zamoras for claims related to willful sexual abuse of minors at the school. Plaintiff also names the four students as Defendants in its Complaint under the theory that they also may not seek compensation from Plaintiff under the Policy for damages they may be awarded in the state court civil action.
Plaintiff filed its Complaint on October 18, 2023, and served Legacy Academy and the Zamoras a week later. None of these Defendants filed an Answer or otherwise responded to the Complaint. Plaintiff therefore sought entry of default against these Defendants on December 15, 2023 (Docs. 19-22), which the Court entered on December 19, 2023 (Doc. 23).
Now, Zamora, Jr. has filed a “Motion to Respond” (Doc. 26)-a form of motion not directly contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules-in which he states that he is incarcerated, he does not have an attorney, and he agrees with Plaintiff's “Declaratory Judgment Complaint.” Indeed, he states that he, Zamora, Sr., and Carmen Zamora “didn't file any claim to obtain any kind of benefit or relief' from Plaintiff and that they have “lost their financial solvency.” Zamora, Jr. asks that they “be excluded from awarding attorneys' fees and costs to Plaintiff.”
In a second filing (Doc. 27), Zamora, Jr. states that he is “proceeding on his behalf and behalf of Defendants [Zamora, Sr. and Carmen Zamora]” and asks for additional time to respond to the Complaint because he is incarcerated and Zamora, Sr. is suffering from health issues.
To begin with, a pro se party who is not a lawyer admitted to practice in this Court cannot represent other parties. He may only represent himself. As a result, the Court has no basis to alter the default entered against Zamora, Sr. and Carmen Zamora. Moreover, Zamora, Jr. does not seek relief on behalf of Legacy Academy, and the default entered against it also remains in effect.
As for Zamora, Jr., he has demonstrated by his filings that he is able to prepare motions on his own behalf, so he does not demonstrate good cause for failing to timely respond to the Complaint or file a motion for extension of time. Perhaps more importantly, Zamora, Jr. has represented to the Court (Doc. 26) that he does not intend to contest Plaintiff's claims in this matter. Without a meritorious defense to Plaintiff's claims, Zamora, Jr.'s answer to the Complaint would be futile. As a result, no good cause exists to vacate the entry of default against Zamora, Jr. If Plaintiff does seek attorney's fees against him, he may contest that request by filing a response to any Motion for Default Judgment that Plaintiff files against him. For these reasons, the Court will deny both of Zamora, Jr.'s Motions (Docs. 26, 27).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying pro se Defendant Victor Elias Zamora, Jr.'s “Motion to Respond Plaintiff's Declaratory Judgment Complaint” (Doc. 26).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying pro se Defendant Victor Elias Zamora, Jr.'s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 27).