Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00746/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00746-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

In re Dennis Andrew Ball, personally and

as Beneficiary of the Eleanor R. Ball

IrreLvg Trust 05/10/01.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0746-PHX-GMS

No. CV-09-0065-PHX-GMS

No. CV-09-0066-PHX-GMS

No. CV-09-0085-PHX-GMS

No. CV-09-0086-PHX-GMS

No. CV-09-0122-PHX-GMS

No. CV-09-0123-PHX-GMS

(Consolidated)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Leave to Retain Counsel for Third

Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Dennis Andrew Ball (Dkt. # 65), Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss (Dkt. # 67), and Mr. Ball’s Response and Motion to Strike (Dkt. # 69).

In this case, the Court has dismissed Mr. Ball’s Complaint, Amended Complaint, and

Second Amended Complaint, all for failing to properly state legal claims against Defendants.

Mr. Ball was given several thirty-day periods in which to file amended complaints, and he

has also received extensions of time. In its Order dismissing the Second Amended

Complaint, the Court informed Mr. Ball that a Third Amended Complaint would be his last

opportunity to properly plead claims against Defendants and that the Court would grant no

more extensions absent a showing of good cause:

the Court also wishes to make it very clear to Mr. Ball that he

has had ample time to either retain an attorney or to craft a

proper complaint on his own in this matter. Thus, the Court is

Case 2:08-cv-00746-GMS Document 71 Filed 07/01/09 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

1

However, Mr. Ball will not be permitted even more opportunities to replead deficient

complaints merely by voluntarily dismissing the case. Mr. Ball has already filed a complaint,

a first amended complaint, and a second amended complaint, all of which have been

adjudged deficient. The Court has gone to great lengths to explain to Mr. Ball the procedural

rules and the deficiencies in his pleadings, and the Court has emphasized that Mr. Ball will

have no more chances to advance these claims if he cannot do so properly. Therefore, if Mr.

Ball again fails to file proper claims against these Defendants, any such claims will be

subject to dismissal with prejudice.

To plead proper claims, Mr. Ball must plead “‘enough facts to state a claim to relief

that is plausible on its face.’” Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th

Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has

facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The plausibility

- 2 -

disinclined to grant Mr. Ball any additional extensions of time,

and will not do so absent a showing of good cause. If Mr. Ball

wishes to file a Third Amended Complaint or to retain an

attorney to do so for him, he should act promptly on this matter

so that he does not miss the filing deadline.

(Dkt. # 54 at 17.) On the last day to file a Third Amended Complaint, Mr. Ball filed his

motion (Dkt. # 65) requesting yet another thirty-day extension. Mr. Ball has made no

attempt to articulate good cause for why he should receive thirty more days. The Court

therefore denies the request for a further extension.

Mr. Ball goes on to state that “if the Court deems this request unreasonable, then the

plaintiff requests the Court [to] Order the Clerk of the Court to process the Lodged Notice

of Withdrawal.” (Dkt. # 65 at 2.) The Court interprets this statement as notice of voluntary

dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because neither an

answer nor a motion for summary judgment has been filed, the notice is effective upon this

Court’s denial of Mr. Ball’s motion for an extension of time. Am. Soccer Co., Inc. v. Score

First Enters., 187 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Rule 41 does not authorize a court to

make a case-by-case evaluation of how far a lawsuit has advanced to decide whether to

vacate a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal. . . . [I]f the defendant has not served an answer or a

motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the suit without

interference from the district court.”).1

 

Case 2:08-cv-00746-GMS Document 71 Filed 07/01/09 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

standard “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.

Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it

‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id.

(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 ) (internal citations omitted).

2

Mr. Ball moves to strike this motion, but offers no authority or reasoning for doing

so. (Dkt. # 69.) The Court will therefore deny Mr. Ball’s motion.

- 3 -

In light of the voluntary dismissal, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 67) is

denied as moot insofar as it requests an alternative disposition of this case.2

 Defendants’

motion, however, also requests that the Court impose sanctions and grant attorneys’ fees

against Mr. Ball. The Court will deny the sanction request, which was made pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Because the Court cannot determine the nature of Mr.

Ball’s claims, the Court is unable to conclude from the face of the complaints themselves that

they were brought for an improper purpose, that the legal claims contained therein are

frivolous, or that the factual contentions made in the complaints lack evidentiary support.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). While Mr. Ball’s repeated reassertion of complaints that share the

same deficiencies comes close to sanctionable conduct, see Leuallen v. Borough of

Paulsboro, 180 F. Supp. 2d 615, 617-18 (D.N.J. 2002), the Court gave Mr. Ball one final

chance to properly plead his case, and Mr. Ball elected to withdraw his claims rather than

attempt to do so. Thus, the Court will not conclude that Mr. Ball’s conduct is sanctionable

at this time.

As to Defendants’ request for costs and attorneys’ fees, the Court will award

Defendants costs but not fees. Defendants are entitled to costs as the prevailing party, Fed.

R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), and will be awarded such costs upon compliance with Local Rule of

Civil Procedure 54.1. However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B)(ii) requires that

any party moving for an award of attorneys’ fees “specify . . . the statute, rule, or other

grounds entitling the movant to the award.” Defendants do not do so in their motion. (See

Dkt. # 67 at 3.) Therefore, Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees is denied.

For the foregoing reasons:

Case 2:08-cv-00746-GMS Document 71 Filed 07/01/09 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 HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Ball’s Motion for Leave to Retain Counsel for

Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 65) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 67) is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants are awarded costs upon their

compliance with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.1.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. # 69) is

DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to file Mr.

Ball’s Lodged Notice of Withdrawal (Dkt. # 66) and to TERMINATE this action.

DATED this 1st day of July, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00746-GMS Document 71 Filed 07/01/09 Page 4 of 4