Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00138/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00138-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Allen, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Quest Online LLC, et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-138-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court are: 1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint

(Doc. 197); 2)Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 200); 3) Plaintiff’s Motion

for Recusal (Doc. 201); 4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel/Strike Answer to amended

complaint and counterclaim (Doc. 204); 5) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Proper Answers

(Doc. 205); 6) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims (Doc.

207); 7) Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Counterclaims (Doc. 208); and 8) Plaintiff’s Motion to

Strike Debtor’s Exam and Related Interrogatories (Doc. 234). Also before the Court is the

Response by Plaintiff to this Court’s Order that Plaintiff show cause why the Court should

not enter an order relieving Defendants from the obligation of responding to any motion or

filing filed by Plaintiff, unless the Court requested Defendants to file a response.

I. Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint (Doc. 197).

As has previously been explained to Plaintiff, in light of the Scheduling Order that has

been entered in this matter, amendment is allowed only if the good cause standard is

Case 2:11-cv-00138-GMS Document 240 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

satisfied. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreation Centers, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992).

“A court’s evaluation of good cause is not coextensive with an inquiry into the propriety of

the amendment under . . . Rule 15.” Id. at 609. “Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment

policy which focuses on the bad faith of the party seeking to interpose an amendment and the

prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the

diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Id. “[C]arelessness is not compatible with

a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Id., citing Engleson v.

Burlington, Northern R.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 1992). If the party seeking

amendment “was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id.

In his motion to amend the complaint, which the Court treats as a motion to amend

the Scheduling Order to allow amendment, Plaintiff offers no reason why, in an appropriate

exercise of diligence, he could not have earlier made the corrections which he now seeks

to make in the Proposed Second Amended Complaint. Therefore, leave to file the proposed

amendment is denied.

II. Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 200).

Plaintiff uses this motion to reassert his arguments on the merits of motions on which

he has not prevailed. The motion does nothing to meet the threshold for vacating judgment

set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. The motion is therefore denied.

III. Motion for Recusal (Doc. 201).

This motion is also denied. The motion alleges that the judge’s rulings demonstrate

that his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Nevertheless, as the Supreme Court has

indicated, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or

impartiality in and of themselves . . . they cannot possibly show reliance upon extrajudicial

source.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 545-55 (1994); see also Hasbrouck v.

Texaco, Inc., 842 F.2d 1034, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The bias must stem from an

extrajudicial source and not be based solely on information gained in the course of the

proceedings.”). 

To the extent this Court has precluded Plaintiff from electronically filing, it has

Case 2:11-cv-00138-GMS Document 240 Filed 05/07/12 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

merely implemented in an even handed way the requirements of LRCiv. 5.5(d), and as the

Ninth Circuit has already ruled in United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934 (9th Cir. 1986)

vague notions held by a litigant that the Court does not like him or her are insufficient

grounds to require recusal; see also Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984)

(“A judge’s previous adverse ruling alone is not sufficient bias” to warrant recusal.).

Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal is, therefore, denied

IV. Motion to Compel/Strike to Answer to Amended Complaint and Counterclaim

(Doc. 204)

This motion is also denied. The Court rejects and has previously rejected the assertion

that the Twombly and Iqbal standards apply to affirmative defenses. See, e.g., J&J Sports

Prods., Inc., v. Khachatrian, No. Cv.-10-1567-GMW-PHS, 2011 WL 720049, at *1 n.1 (D.

Ariz. Feb. 23, 2011). Therefore, Defendants have adequately stated the affirmative defenses

set forth in their Answer, and Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

V. Motion to Compel Proper Answers (Doc. 205)

This motions is also denied. The Answer of the Defendants/Counterclaimants

identified by Plaintiff in his motion “fairly respond to the substance of the allegation”

contained in the Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied.

VI. Motion for Leave to File Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims (Doc. 207)

This motion is granted. Plaintiff may file his motion to dismiss, subject to the

requirements of this Order.

VII. Motion to Strike Counterclaims (Doc. 208)

This Motion is also denied. The allegations that Defendant seeks to have stricken are

allegations that are or may be relevant to their claims or counterclaims. A dismissal of

claims through a settlement agreement, does not result in the cancellation of facts that may

be relevant to other claims that are not barred by the doctrine of issue or claim preclusion.

To the extent that the Plaintiff believes that the claims based on the factual allegations are

precluded, he may include this argument, together with the relevant legal authorities in his

case dispositive motion. 

Case 2:11-cv-00138-GMS Document 240 Filed 05/07/12 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

VIII. Motion to Strike Debtor’s Exam and Related Interrogatories (Doc. 234)

This motion is also denied. Plaintiff is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court and to

the applicable federal rules governing the collection of judgments. 

IX. Order To Show Cause

This Court has reviewed the history of the extensive motions made by Plaintiff in the

course of this litigation. The Court notes again, as it has a number of times during the

litigation, that Plaintiff urges and reurges legal arguments that the Court has previously

reviewed, considered and denied. Although the Court has entered one sanction to curb this

behavior by Plaintiff, he has failed to curtail such conduct, and in fact, Plaintiff asserts that

he lacks the economic resources to pay any fine or attorneys’ fees awards. Therefore, in

order to preserve Plaintiff’s right to raise the legal arguments that he believes should be

addressed while at the same time limiting the cost to Defendants of repeatedly responding

to motions on which the Court has previously ruled and which are filed for purposes of

vexation, cost and delay, with the exception of the single summary judgment motion which

Plaintiff is authorized to file, Defendants need not respond to any further motions by

Plaintiff, unless the Court requests such a response. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint (Doc. 197) is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 200) is denied.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal (Doc. 201) is denied.

4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel/Strike Answer to amended complaint and

counterclaim (Doc. 204) is denied.

5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Proper Answers (Doc. 205) is denied.

6. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims (Doc.

207) is granted.

7. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Counterclaims (Doc. 208) is denied.

8. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Debtor’s Exam and Related Interrogatories (Doc.

234) is denied.

Case 2:11-cv-00138-GMS Document 240 Filed 05/07/12 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

9. Defendants’ Motion for Rule 16 Conference (Doc. 215) is denied as moot.

DATED this 4th day of May, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-00138-GMS Document 240 Filed 05/07/12 Page 5 of 5