Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01905/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01905-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

Mena Bishara, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

U.S. Bank Home Mortgage; a Corporation;

MERS; US Bank NA; Does I through X

inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1905-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 19) and Motion to

Supplement Objection To Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20). The Supplemental

Objection to the Motion to Dismiss is improper for several reasons. First, the Motion to

Dismiss has been fully briefed since October 24, 2011. Second, the arguments made in the

Supplement are not properly made at this time as they appear to assert new causes of action

that were not included in the original Complaint - Plaintiff must wait for the Court to rule on

his Motion to Amend before proceeding further with new causes of action. Finally, Local

Rule 7.2 allows for a Motion, a Response, and a Reply. See LRCiv. 7.2. No further

objections or replies are provided for and it is not the Court’s practice to allow a neverending briefing schedule, especially where a sur-reply is made more than five months after

briefing has closed. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Objection to

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20) is denied. 

Case 2:11-cv-01905-JAT Document 21 Filed 04/18/12 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 -

Further, oral argument on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) is currently set for

April 30, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. At that oral argument, the Parties should be also be prepared

to argue Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 20). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants shall respond to the Motion to

Amend by April 24, 2012 and Plaintiff shall file a reply in support of his Motion to Amend

by April 27, 2012. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED setting oral argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave

to Amend Complaint (Doc. 19) for 4/30/2012 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 503, 401 West

Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge James A. Teilborg. See Doc. 18 for

additional details.

DATED this 18th day of April, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01905-JAT Document 21 Filed 04/18/12 Page 2 of 2