Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00036/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00036-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Frederick B. Flores, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

ADT Security Services, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-036-TUC-FRZ (GEE)

ORDER

Pending before the Court for consideration is Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on

the Pleadings and Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

This action, originally filed in the Arizona Superior Court in and for the County of

Pima and removed to this Court on the jurisdictional basis of diversity, was referred to

Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmonds for all pretrial proceedings and report and

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1

and LRCiv 72.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District

of Arizona, Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff Frederick B. Flores filed this action alleging breach of contract, tortious

breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and consumer

fraud pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1522 against Defendant ADT Security Services, Inc. 

Magistrate Judge Edmonds issued separate Reports and Recommendations as to each

of the pending motions. Each Report and Recommendation sets forth a factual and

procedural background.

Case 4:10-cv-00036-FRZ-GEE Document 63 Filed 03/31/11 Page 1 of 4
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 -

I. Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 

On June 28, 2010, Magistrate Judge Edmonds issued her Report and

Recommendation, recommending that the District Court, after its independent review of the

record, enter an order granting in part Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,

filed pursuant to Rule 12(c), finding that Defendant is entitled to judgment on Plaintiff’s

claim for tortious breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and on Plaintiff’s claim

for negligence. 

The Magistrate Judge also recommends that the Court deny both Defendant’s Motion

to Stay, based on the fact that Defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion does not resolve the entire

action, and Plaintiff’s Rule 56(f) Motion for Continuance to Permit Additional Discovery,

on the basis Defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings should not be

treated as a motion for summary judgment as Plaintiff suggests.

Magistrate Judge Edmonds, under the proper legal standard of review set forth in

Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009), provides a thorough analysis of each

of the claims, recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s motion on Plaintiff’s claims

for tortious breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and on Plaintiff’s claim for

negligence, and deny Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s

breach of contract and state consumer fraud claims.

Defendant filed its limited objections, objecting only to Magistrate Judge Edmond’s

findings that (1) the exculpatory provisions in the Residential Services Contract is void

under the reasonable expectations doctrine, and (2) the Complaint states a viable claim for

consumer fraud. Defendant argues that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s claims in their

entirety, or in the alternative, limit any recovered damages under the provisions of the

agreement.

In response, Plaintiff asserts that the Report and Recommendation should be affirmed

in all respects and the objections of the Defendant be overruled and that the Court adopt the

findings that Plaintiff has properly pled claims for breach of contract and consumer fraud.

Plaintiff does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the tortious breach

Case 4:10-cv-00036-FRZ-GEE Document 63 Filed 03/31/11 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

of duty of good faith and fair dealing and the negligence claims be denied.

The Court finds, after consideration of all matters presented, including the objections

of the Defendant, that the findings of the Magistrate Judge as set forth in the Report and

Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings are proper findings

of fact and conclusions of law.

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

On January 31, 2011, Magistrate Judge Edmonds issued her Report and

Recommendation, recommending that the District Court, after its independent review of the

record, enter an order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Judgment, based on the finding

that the liability limitation clause does not violate the doctrine of reasonable expectations,

is not unconscionable, and does not violate public policy, setting forth the proper legal

standard and analysis under Ruler 56(c)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P.

Plaintiff filed objections to the recommendation to deny his motion, relying mainly

on public policy argument, absent legal authority.

After consideration of the matters presented, including Plaintiff’s objections and

Defendant’s response thereto, the Court finds that the findings of Magistrate Judge Edmunds

and the recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial shall be accepted as set forth

in the Report and Recommendations.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds, after consideration of all matters presented,

and after an independent review of the record herein, that the findings of the Magistrate

Judge as set forth in the Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion for Judgment

on the Pleadings and the Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment, shall be accepted and adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Court. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Edmond’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 43) addressing Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by

this Court;

Case 4:10-cv-00036-FRZ-GEE Document 63 Filed 03/31/11 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings (Doc. 20) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Stay (Doc. 21) is

DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Rule 56(f) Motion for Continuance to

Permit Additional Discovery (Doc. 29) is DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Edmond’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 56) on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is hereby

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

(Doc. 27) is DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter shall proceed on the remaining claims

of breach of contract and consumer fraud;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge

Edmonds for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation in accordance with the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1 and LRCiv 72.2.

DATED this 31st day of March, 2011.

Case 4:10-cv-00036-FRZ-GEE Document 63 Filed 03/31/11 Page 4 of 4