Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02270/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02270-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Patricia N. Ibeabuchi, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona State University; Michael Crow;

Dr. Nicholas Alozie, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 08-2270-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiff Patricia Ibeabuchi requested oral argument on Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss. On June 2, 2009, the Court set oral argument on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

for 1:30 p.m. on June 23, 2009. (Doc. #11). Counsel for Defendants attended the June 23rd

oral argument; Ms. Ibeabuchi did not. The Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction on June 24, 2009. (Doc. #13). The Clerk of the Court

entered Judgement on June 24, 2009 pursuant to the Dismissal Order. (Doc. #14). 

On June 26, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reset Date for Oral Argument (Doc.

#15). In her Motion, Plaintiff claims that she was unexpectedly away from home for an

extended period of time, so she did not know about the oral argument. Plaintiff complains

that she did not receive thirty-days’ notice of the oral argument.

Plaintiff has cited to no rule or case law mandating that the Court provide thirty-days’

notice for an oral argument. Nor does the Court believe that the 21-days’ notice given was

Case 2:08-cv-02270-JAT Document 18 Filed 07/10/09 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

1

Oral argument was set because Plaintiff requested it. But it is clear that oral

argument would not have aided the Court's decisional process. See e.g., Partridge v. Reich,

141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998)

- 2 -

insufficient. The Court finds no reason to re-open the case to hold another oral argument.1

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion to Reset Date for Oral Argument

(Doc. #15).

DATED this 9th day of July, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02270-JAT Document 18 Filed 07/10/09 Page 2 of 2