Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01596/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01596-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

Allied Waste North America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

ITS Enterprises, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1596-PHX-MHM

ORDER

On March 25, 2009, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Allied

Waste North America (“Allied”). (Doc. # 45) On May 20, 2009, the Court allowed Allied

to file a motion on the issue of damages. (Doc. # 57) Accordingly, on May 29, 2009, Allied

filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Its Damage Claim. (Doc. # 58) In its motion,

Allied requests defense costs incurred in defending against the underlying lawsuit in the

amount of $75,943.60 plus interest. Defendant did not file a Response by the June 12, 2009

Court-imposed deadline.

On June 16, 2009, Allied filed a Request (Motion) for Summary Ruling on Its Motion

for Summary Judgment RE: Damages, arguing that because Defendant did not file a

response, the Court should summarily grant its summary judgment motion pursuant to Local

Rule of Practice LRCiv 7.2(i), Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona. (Doc. # 60) Pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i), if a party “does not serve and file

Case 2:07-cv-01596-MHM Document 61 Filed 06/24/09 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 -

the required answering memoranda . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to

the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.”

Notwithstanding this rule, in accordance with prevailing Ninth Circuit law, the Court has

reviewed Allied’s papers and finds them sufficient to support its motion for summary

judgment on its damage claim. See Henry v. Gill Industr., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949-50 (9th

Cir. 1993). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting Allied’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Its Damage

Claim. (Doc. # 58) 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment

against Defendant ITS Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $75,943.60 plus interest to accrue

at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of judgment until the amount is paid in full.

In light of the Court’s ruling above, 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Allied’s Motion for Summary Ruling on Its

Motion for Summary Judgment RE: Damages. (Doc. # 60)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Allied leave to supplement its fee application

to include the fees incurred in briefing its motion for summary judgment on its damage claim.

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-01596-MHM Document 61 Filed 06/24/09 Page 2 of 2