Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02692/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02692-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

LaShauna Coleman,

Plaintiff,

v.

American Home Mortgage Servicing,

Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2692 PHX DGC

ORDER

Defendants American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., Sand Canyon Corporation,

Option One Mortgage Corporation, and individually named employees of those Defendants

have filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. #16. Plaintiff LaShauna Coleman has filed a motion to

strike Defendants’ motion to dismiss on four grounds: (1) Defendants’ motion does not

comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(d)(1); (2) Defendants’ motion does not

comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b); (3) Defendants’ attorney has not

complied with Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1; and (4) Defendants have not complied

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1.

Coleman has not identified any statute or rule authorizing her motion to strike as

required by Rule 7.2 of the Court’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure. See LRCiv 7.2(m)(2).

Moreover, as to her first and second arguments, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is not a

“pleading” as contemplated by the Federal Rules. Rather, it is a motion to which

Rule 8(a)(d)(1) and Rule 10(b) do not apply. 

As to her third argument, Coleman states that she relies on “Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

Case 2:09-cv-02692-ROS Document 24 Filed 02/04/10 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 -

5.1(a)(1),” but she quotes “Ariz. R. Civ. P. 5.1(a)(1).” Dkt. #23 at 2. Arizona Rules of Civil

Procedure are not used by this Court. This is a federal court where the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure apply.

As to her final argument, Coleman cites no authority showing that this Court may

strike Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on a failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 7.1. 

IT IS ORDERED that Coleman’s motion to strike (Dkt. #23) is denied.

DATED this 4th day of February, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02692-ROS Document 24 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 2