Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01122/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01122-0/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

CML-AZ BLUE RIDGE, LLC, a Florida

limited liability company, 

Plaintiff

v.

STERLING PLAZA WEST, LLC, an

Arizona limited liability company, et al., 

Defendants/Third-Party 

Plaintiffs. 

v.

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION,

Third-Party Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1122-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant/third party plaintiff Sterling Plaza West LLC’s

(“Sterling Plaza”) “Motion To Modify Briefing Schedule Re: FDIC’s Motion To Strike Or

Sever Third Party Complaint” (doc. 15). Third party defendant FDIC removed this action

on June 3, 2011. On June 13, 2011, third party defendant FDIC moved to strike or sever

Sterling Plaza’s third party complaint against defendant FDIC (doc. 6). On June 27, 2011,

Sterling Plaza moved to remand this action (doc. 14). Sterling Plaza requests that we

postpone briefing on defendant FDIC’s motion to strike until after we resolve Sterling

Plaza’s motion to remand. 

Case 2:11-cv-01122-FJM Document 16 Filed 06/28/11 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 -

There is not good cause to modify the briefing schedule. Sterling Plaza’s motion to

remand may not be fully briefed for almost a month. The court will then need time to review

and rule on the motion. If we deny the motion to remand, the parties will then be entitled to

several more weeks to complete briefing on the motion to strike/sever, resulting in a potential

delay of several months in resolving the motion. In the event that we grant the motion to

remand, we do not believe that the timely briefing of the motion to strike/sever will entail

significant duplicative work. Sterling Plaza notes that the parties completed briefing on

plaintiff CML’s motion to strike in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County.

Sterling Plaza argues that different standards would govern the motion in this court. While

this may be true, certainly much of the substance of Sterling Plaza’s response here would be

similar to its state court briefing. Any limited additional research required does not justify

the lengthy delay that Sterling Plaza requests. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendant/third party plaintiff’s motion to

modify the briefing schedule (doc. 15). 

DATED this 28th day of June, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01122-FJM Document 16 Filed 06/28/11 Page 2 of 2