Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01421/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01421-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

Venustiano Nieto Beltran, )

et al. )

Plaintiffs, ) No. CIV-07-1421-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

United States of America, )

)

Defendant. )

 )

 Pending before the court is plaintiffs’ Motion for Oral

Argument on Defendant’s Motion to Judgment on the Pleadings (doc.

28). Having considered that Motion, as well as the defendant’s

Response thereto (doc. 30), the court hereby DENIES same.

 Denial is mandated for two reasons. First, plaintiffs did not

comply with LRCiv 7.2(f), which governs requests for oral argument

in this District. That Rule provides in relevant part that “a

party desiring oral argument shall request it by placing ‘Oral

Argument Requested’ immediately below the title of such motion or

the response to such motion.” LRCiv 7.2(f) (emphasis added). 

Plaintiffs’ response (doc. 24), filed on September 5, 2008, to

defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings does not include

Case 2:07-cv-01421-RCB Document 32 Filed 09/30/08 Page 1 of 2
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 -

such a request. The court will not overlook this procedural

defect, especially given the fact that oral argument will not

assist the court.

 Plaintiffs’s request is in part based upon what they

anticipated would be a “disadvantage” arising from the content of

defendant’s reply. Mot. (doc. 28) at 1. After reviewing that

reply, the court sees not such “disadvantage.” Defendant’s reply,

not surprisingly, simply refutes the arguments in plaintiffs’

response. That is an insufficient basis upon which to grant oral

argument. Where, as here, the legal issues are relatively

straightforward and the parties have had ample opportunity to brief

them, oral argument will not assist the court. 

 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the court HEREBY

DENIES plaintiffs’ Motion for Oral Argument on Defendants’ Motion

for Judgment on the Pleadings (doc. 28).

 

DATED this 29th day of September, 2008.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:07-cv-01421-RCB Document 32 Filed 09/30/08 Page 2 of 2