Opinion
CV-23-02166-PHX-JJT
04-12-2024
Twin City Fire Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v. Unknown Party, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
HONORABLE JOHN J. TUCHI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
At issue is Defendant Victor Elias Zamora, Jr.'s (“Defendant”) Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 40). Defendant asks the Court to reconsider its Order (Doc. 35) denying his untimely request for an extension of time to answer the Complaint (Doc. 1).
The Court does not find that it erred in denying Defendant's request to file an untimely Answer. Defendant asks the Court to accept his non-compliance with the applicable Rules on account of his pro se status, citing Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), for the proposition that a pro se litigant's complaint “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” That case does not apply to this situation, because the Court was not called on to examine the sufficiency of a pleading-that is, a complaint or answer-filed by Defendant. The Court was called on to examine whether Defendant complied with the applicable Rules, and if not, showed good cause for the failure to do so. Defendant's pro se status does not provide an excuse for him to fail to comply with Court Rules. See Am. Ass'n of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1107-08 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that pro se litigants are not excused from following court rules); Carter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986) (same).
As the Court noted in its prior Order (Doc. 35), Defendant has stipulated in his Motion to this Court (Doc. 26) that he does not contest the substance of Plaintiff's claim in this matter. He opposes only Plaintiff's entitlement to attorneys' fees based on the facts that he does not contest Plaintiff's claim and has never sought insurance coverage from Plaintiff for the sexual abuse for which he was convicted and imprisoned. Again, the result is that the Court's denial of leave for Defendant to file an Answer results in no prejudice to Defendant, because he can oppose any claim by Plaintiff for attorneys' fees by responding to any Motion for Default Judgment Plaintiff files.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying pro se Defendant Victor Elias Zamora, Jr.'s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 40).