Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-00474/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-00474-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

Gary R. Walsh,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Christine Scattergood,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-474-PHX-FJM

ORDER

In our order dated May 16, 2006, we granted Christine Scattergood's motions to

dismiss (docs. 3 and 8). We now have before us Gary Walsh's motion for reconsideration

(doc. 14).

The order was served by mail to Walsh on May 18, 2006. Pursuant to Rules 5 and 6,

Fed. R. Civ. P., and LRCiv 7.2(g), Walsh had through June 6, 2006 to move for

reconsideration. Walsh untimely filed his motion on June 8, 2006 and it is accordingly

denied.

Furthermore, Walsh would not have prevailed even if his motion had been timely

filed. Nothing in the motion causes us to reconsider our conclusions with regard to his

federal claims. And Walsh's unsworn assertion of intent to remain in Washington is

insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction; he failed to submit a sworn declaration or other

evidence of his intent.

Case 3:06-cv-00474-FJM Document 15 Filed 06/20/06 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 -

Furthermore, Walsh would not have prevailed even if he had established diversity

jurisdiction because he did not assert any state law claims. Count 2 most closely resembles

a state law claim but it is described as a federal law constructive fraud claim.

Finally, Walsh would not have prevailed even if his fraud claim were premised on

state rather than federal law. He contends that Scattergood defrauded him by inducing him

to deed his properties to her, and by making misrepresentations to the state court. These

claims are vague and therefore fail to meet the Rule 9(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., heightened

pleading standard for fraud claims. Moreover, the parties stipulated that Scattergood would

keep the disputed properties, and a divorce decree was entered upon that stipulation. Walsh

should have raised these claims during those proceedings.

For all these reasons, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for

reconsideration (doc. 14).

Walsh's remedies, if any, lie in state court. We strongly advise Walsh to seek the

advice of counsel. He may wish to call the Lawyer Referral Service of the Maricopa County

Bar Association at 602-257-4434 for a referral.

DATED this 16th day of June, 2006.

Case 3:06-cv-00474-FJM Document 15 Filed 06/20/06 Page 2 of 2