Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00127/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00127-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

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

Scottsdale Capital Advisors Corp., Alpine

Securities Corp., John J. Hurry and Justine

Hurry, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Brian Jones,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-127-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Notice Regarding Completion of

Briefing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff’s Motion for Ruling Summary

Disposition and Motion to Consolidate Motion for Preliminary Injunction with Trial on

the Merits. (Doc. 21) Plaintiffs explain that their pending motions seek an order enjoining Defendant from continuing with arbitration proceedings he initiated against Plaintiffs

before Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Dispute Resolution, the

dispute resolution forum administered by the FINRA. (Id. at 2) Plaintiffs further advise

that a pre-hearing conference is scheduled before the FINRA panel on April 18, 2012. 

Though this lawsuit was only filed on January 20, 2012, Plaintiffs advise the Court

that the foregoing motions, docs. 12 and 15, are ripe for ruling and request a ruling on the

pending motions. The Court is well aware that the motions are ready for ruling. Candidly,

Plaintiffs’ Notice demonstrates a mistaken impression that Plaintiffs’ lawsuit and motions

are entitled to a greater priority or urgency than others with lower case numbers and a

Case 2:12-cv-00127-LOA Document 23 Filed 04/11/12 Page 1 of 3
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 -

naivete that the judicial emergency declared for the District of Arizona in 2011 due to the

dearth of federal judges is a mere fiction in the minds of the chief judges for the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals and District of Arizona. According to the Clerk’s Data Quality

and Statistical Manager and based upon the AO Director’s Annual Report of Judicial

Business, the District of Arizona ranked number one of the 94 districts in the United

States for volume of felony defendant filings for FY- 2011. For the last reporting period

ending February 29, 2012, the District of Arizona’s judges averaged 769 filings in the

past 12 months (both criminal and civil combined), compared to the national average of

559 filings per year per judge. Clearly, the District of Arizona’s judicial emergency is

real, not imaginary, and, unfortunately for civil litigants and their counsel, criminal cases

take priority.

Although the Court’s extremely full calendar prevents it from ruling on the

pending motions at this time, in the interest of promoting a fair resolution of this case

consistent with Fed.R.Civ.P. 1, the Court will stay the arbitration before the FINRA until

the Court has ruled on the pending motions and issued an order lifting the stay.

The Court has previously ordered the parties to comply with the Rules of Practice

for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, including LRCiv 7.1(a)(3),

which mandates that for captions, “[p]arty names must be capitalized using proper upper

and lower case type[.]” LRCiv 7.1(a)(3). (A sample of proper capitalization is provided in

Appendix C – LRCiv 7.1 Form). (Doc. 13 at 3) Plaintiffs’ caption in its Notice Regarding Completion of Briefing violates LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) as each name is entirely in upper

case type. Future violations of LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) and prior court orders will likely result in

the imposition of sanctions against the offending attorney or party. See LRCiv.7.1(d)(5)

and 83.1(f)

On the Court’s own motion,

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:12-cv-00127-LOA Document 23 Filed 04/11/12 Page 2 of 3
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 -

IT IS ORDERED that the arbitration proceedings between Plaintiffs and Defendant before the FINRA, including the pre-hearing conference set for April 18, 2012, are

STAYED pending further order of this Court. 

Dated this 11th day of April, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00127-LOA Document 23 Filed 04/11/12 Page 3 of 3