Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00436/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00436-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Theodore E. Coit, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sutton Funding LLC, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-0436-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On May 24, 2010, this Court dismissed Plaintiff Theodore E. Coit, Jr.’s complaint

against Defendants Sutton Funding, LLC, HomEq Servicing Corporation, Equifirst

Corporation, and Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc. with prejudice. Dkt. #31. On May 25,

2010, Plaintiff filed a request for sanctions against Defendants Sutton Funding and Barclays

“for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution of Plaintiff’s

Due Process Rights.” Dkt. #33 at 1. Plaintiff contends that Defendants deprived him of his

due process rights by refusing to provide him with discovery necessary for this Court “to

make a fair and just ruling on the merits of this action.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff further contends

that Defendants improperly asked the Court “to make a ruling that would deprive the Plaintiff

of Plaintiff’s property rights based on hearsay evidence which would be another abuse of

Plaintiff’s Due Process Rights.” Defendants oppose the request for sanctions. Dkt. #34. 

Plaintiff argues that Defendants should be sanctioned for violating his due process

rights because they failed to cooperate with his requests for discovery. Defendants, in

response, argue that they did not violate Plaintiff’s due process rights because discovery was

Case 2:10-cv-00436-DGC Document 40 Filed 06/22/10 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 -

never authorized in this case. Id. at 2-3. They argue that, because no Rule 26(f) conference

was ever held in this case, discovery was not proper. Id. (citing Rule 26(f)). The Court

agrees. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), “[a] party may not seek discovery

from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)[.]” In this case,

there was no Rule 26(f) conference and, as a result, discovery was not authorized. Because

discovery was not authorized, Defendants could not have violated Plaintiff’s rights by failing

to comply with his premature requests for discovery.

Plaintiff also argues that Defendants should be sanctioned because they asked the

Court to consider hearsay evidence in ruling on the motion to quash lis pendens. Dkt. #33

at 2. Plaintiff argues that, by presenting evidence that a sale of the property was pending and

would be completed if the lis pendens was quashed, Defendants deprived him of his due

process rights. Defendants, in response, argue that their motion to quash lis pendens was

based on a sworn declaration signed under penalty of perjury and that, as a result, the

evidence was proper for the Court to consider. Dkt. #34 at 3. Plaintiff does not respond to

this argument. Plaintiff further does not explain why Defendants should be sanctioned for

filing such evidence with the Court. As a result, the Court will not sanction Defendants.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for sanctions (Dkt. #33) is denied.

 DATED this 22nd day of June, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00436-DGC Document 40 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 2