Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01851/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01851-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Fraud

---

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

Salvador J. Dihz and Eva Arroela, a

married couple, and individually and for

the wrongful death of their children,

Jazmin, Belen, Giovany and Jose Jacobo

Arreola and on behalf of Carla Dihz, a

minor, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Luis Mansanares, Victoria Mansanares, et.

al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1851-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Presently pending before the Court are Defendants pro se's Motion to Certify

Appealability Regarding 1-05-07 Order (Doc. 28); Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time

to File a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 29); Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike and Opposition

to Defendants’ Second Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration

(Doc. 32); and the Affidavit of Peter T. Limperis in Support of Plaintiffs' Fee Application

(Doc. 23). The Court considers the relevant papers and issues the following Order. 

Defendants have filed a Motion to Certify Appealability Regarding 1-05-07 Order.

Defendants' Motion is unnecessary because the case before this Court has been remanded and

Case 2:06-cv-01851-MHM Document 34 Filed 03/07/07 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 -

is now closed. Therefore, the Court denies as moot Defendants' Motion to Certify

Appealability. 

Defendants have filed a second Motion For Extension of Time to File a Motion for

Reconsideration (Doc. 29). However, Defendants’ cause for the request is unclear, despite

the length of Defendants' thirteen-page Motion. Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Strike and

Opposition to Defendants’ Second Motion for Extension to File a Motion for

Reconsideration (Doc. 32). Plaintiffs note that since the Court’s January 5, 2007 Order

granting Defendants’ first Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for

Reconsideration, Defendants have filed a Motion to Certify Appealability (Doc. 28), which

the Court denies as moot, a Second Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for

Reconsideration (Doc. 29), a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit (Doc. 27), and an invalid

subpoena upon the Liberty Elementary School District (Doc. 26), in which Defendants seek

to obtain the decedent’s school records. Plaintiffs contend that these filings should be

stricken from the docket pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 12(f) provides that a court “may order stricken from any pleading . . . any

redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter.” “[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). 

Plaintiffs argue that the allegations and exhibits submitted most recently by

Defendants are voluminous, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, scandalous and irrelevant

to the claims against them or to any defense to those claims. Specifically, Plaintiffs request

the Court strike Documents 24, 26, and 29 from the case. Document 24 is Defendants’ first

Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration, which the Court granted

in its January 25, 2007 Order. Document 26 is a Certificate of Service of Subpoena upon

Liberty Elementary School District No. 25. Document 29 is Defendants’ Second Motion for

Extension of Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration. 

Case 2:06-cv-01851-MHM Document 34 Filed 03/07/07 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 -

The Court previously granted Defendants’ first Motion for Extension of Time to File

a Motion for Reconsideration. The Court finds that such an extension was warranted because

of the Defendants’ pro se status. In contrast, however, the Court does not find that

Defendants’ Certificate of Service of Subpoena upon Liberty Elementary School District No.

25, after the case was remanded; nor Defendants’ Second Motion for Extension of Time to

File a Motion for Reconsideration with no good cause appearing are warranted. Therefore,

the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike by striking Defendants’

Certificate of Service of Subpoena upon Liberty Elementary School District No. 25, and

Defendants’ Second Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration. 

The Court’s January 5, 2007 Order granted, inter alia, Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys

fees and costs. Plaintiffs have since submitted an affidavit with a calculation of their fees and

costs. A court may grant attorneys’ fees provided the accounting is reasonable. Kerr v.

Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975). In Plaintiffs counsel’s affidavit,

counsel details the time spent and the work performed on the case from the time Defendants

removed the case to this Court until the case was remanded back to State Court. The Court

has reviewed the affidavit detailing the amount sought. In total, Plaintiffs seek an award of

$6,827.75 in fees and non-taxable expenses. Defendants have not filed an objection to the

reasonableness of the award sought. The Court finds that the amount requested by Plaintiff

to be reasonable. See Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d 1439, 1450-51 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting

defendants’ failure to make specific objections to a request of attorney’s fees.)

Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Court again grants Plaintiffs’ request for

an award of attorney’s fees and costs incurred since the Court remanded the case. Despite

the Court’s remand of the case to State Court, this Court will retain jurisdiction to determine

the appropriate additional fees and costs associated with Defendants' improper removal.

Plaintiffs shall file with this Court appropriate documentation regarding their additional

attorneys' fees and costs.

Accordingly,

Case 2:06-cv-01851-MHM Document 34 Filed 03/07/07 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 ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Certify Appealability (Doc. 28) is

denied as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 32) is granted

in part and denied in part. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Documents 26 and 29 shall be struck from the

docket.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED finding Plaintiffs' request of $6,827.75 reasonable and

Ordering Defendant to pay that amount. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' request for further attorneys’ fees and

costs is granted. Plaintiffs shall file the appropriate documentation regarding attorneys' fees

and costs within ten (10) days of the file date this Order. 

DATED this 7th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01851-MHM Document 34 Filed 03/07/07 Page 4 of 4