Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-03490/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-03490-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12181 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Tristan Young, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Arizona Summit Law School LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-16-03490-PHX-DJH 

ORDER 

 Before this Court is Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 53). Plaintiff has filed a Response (Doc. 58) and Defendants have filed 

a Reply (Doc. 59). Additionally, the parties have filed a notice of a discovery dispute 

(Doc. 60) and an “Updated Notice of Discovery Dispute” (Doc. 62). 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff, a former Arizona Summit Law School student, initiated this action on 

October 12, 2016. (Doc. 1). Count Two of the Complaint accused Defendants of negligent 

misrepresentation and Count Three accused Defendants of common law fraud. (Id., ¶¶ 

115-130). In a prior Order, the Court dismissed Counts Two and Three. (Doc. 39). 

Therefore, the only claim remaining is Count One, in which Plaintiff alleged that 

Defendants failed to provide appropriate accommodations for her disabilities while she was 

a student at Arizona Summit Law School. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 104-114). 

On July 23, 2018, the Court issued a Rule 16 Scheduling Order, which provided that 

“[t]he deadline for joining parties, amending pleadings, and filing supplemental pleadings 

Case 2:16-cv-03490-DJH Document 63 Filed 01/22/19 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

is 60 days from the date of this Order.” (Doc. 44). Sixty days later, on September 21, 

2018, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), without seeking leave to do 

so. (Doc. 50). 

II. MOTION TO STRIKE 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(f) allows a court to “strike from a 

pleading” any matter that is “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.” See also

LRCiv. 7.2(m)(1) (a motion to strike may only be filed if “authorized by statute or rule, . . . 

or if it seeks to strike any part of a filing or submission on the ground that it is prohibited 

(or not authorized) by a statute, rule, or court order.”). “[T]he function of a 12(f) motion 

to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating 

spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial . . . .” Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. 

Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). The decision to strike a pleading is 

ultimately within a trial court’s discretion. Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 

970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010). Additionally, the Court possesses inherent power to manage its 

docket and strike improper filings. See, e.g., Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Hercules 

Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998); Spurlock v. F.B.I., 69 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir. 

1995) (recognizing the district court’s inherent power and authority over the administration 

of its business, to regulate the conduct of litigants who appear before it, and to promulgate 

and enforce rules for the management of litigation) (collecting cases). 

The FAC reasserts Plaintiff’s ADA Claim but also makes new allegations on behalf 

of a putative class. (Doc. 50 at 1, 15-16). Plaintiff argues that the Rule 16 Scheduling 

Order negates the necessity to seek leave before filing an amended complaint. 

(Doc. 58 at 2). The Court disagrees. The Rule 16 Scheduling Order set a deadline to file 

an amended pleading, it did not eliminate Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the 

requirements of Rule 15(a)(2) when filing an amended pleading. Rule 15(a)(2) requires 

that if the party is not amending as a matter of course, then the “party may amend its 

pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Here, 

Plaintiff did not seek leave to file an amended complaint and did not receive Defendants’ 

Case 2:16-cv-03490-DJH Document 63 Filed 01/22/19 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

written consent; therefore, Plaintiff’s FAC was improperly filed and shall be stricken from 

the record. See Cwiak v. City of Phoenix, 2010 WL 1742531, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 29, 2010) 

(finding that granting a defendant’s motion to strike the seconded amended complaint for 

the plaintiff’s failure to seek leave prior to filing the amended pleading is “is clearly 

warranted under L.R.Civ. 7.2.”). If Plaintiff wishes to amend her complaint she must 

comply with Rule 15. 

III. DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

The parties dispute whether Plaintiff’s medical records following her withdrawal 

from Arizona Summit Law School are relevant to her claims of disability discrimination. 

(Doc. 60). Plaintiff’s statement regarding the discovery dispute assumes that the First 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 50) is the operative complaint; however, as the Court granted 

Defendants’ Motion to Strike the First Amended Complaint previously in this Order, the 

Court will not issue a ruling on the discovery dispute at this time. The parties are directed 

to confer regarding the effect of this Court’s Order on the present discovery dispute. If the 

parties are still unable to resolve the discovery dispute, then the parties may refile a notice 

of discovery dispute in compliance with the Rule 16 Scheduling Order. (Doc. 44 at 4). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 53) is GRANTED. 

 Dated this 22nd day of January, 2019. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-03490-DJH Document 63 Filed 01/22/19 Page 3 of 3