Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00666/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00666-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CARMINA GUERRERO, on her behalf and on

behalf of her minor children, A.U.H., and M.H.;

Janeth Guerrero, on her behalf and on behalf of

her minor son, J.C.V.; Reyena Guerrero, on her

behalf and on behalf of her minor son, R.G.; Ines

Lugoo, on her behalf and on behalf of her minor

grandson, F.G.; Guadalupe Tanabe; Carlos La

Madrid; Susana Guerrero,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. _____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV4:10-666-TUC-DCB

ORDER

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on November 9, 2010. Defendant filed an Answer.

The Court held a scheduling conference and set the case management deadlines, with

discovery to end October 1, 2011, and dispositive motions due October 15, 2011. On

October 17, 2011, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.

Defendant argued the Plaintiffs’ tort claims against federal agents for using excessive force

in executing a search warrant at their home fall within the discretionary function exception

to the Federal Tort Claims Act. On May 31, 2012, the Court denied the Defendant’s Motion

to Dismiss, but ordered the Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint to state their underlying

Case 4:10-cv-00666-FRZ Document 42 Filed 08/29/12 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

The Amended Complaint, filed by the Plaintiffs on June 18, 2012, was required

because the original Complaint failed to identify the underlying state tort claim violations.

The original Complaint alleged only facts, damages, and relief sought. Plaintiffs only

asserted generally a cause of action under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Amended

Complaint is identical to the original Complaint in its factual allegations, except for the

omission of allegations made by Carlos La Madrid, now deceased. Like the original

Complaint, the Amended Complaint alleges facts supporting jurisdiction under the FTCA

because it states facts, which if proven to be true, would exclude Defendant from the

protection afforded by the discretionary function exception to liability for tortious conduct

under the FTCA. 

2

state tort claims. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on June 18, 2012,1 and on

August 17, 2012, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment.

The motion is untimely. In this Court, it is the filing of a Pretrial Order and the setting

of a Pretrial Conference which identifies a case is ready to proceed to trial. On May 31,

2012, when the Court denied the Defendant’s first Motion to Dismiss, the Court directed the

parties to file a Pretrial Order because discovery had closed and the dispositive motions

deadline was past. The Pretrial Order was, accordingly, filed on July 20, 2012, and on July

26, 2012, the Court set a Pretrial Conference for August 27, 2012. The dispositive motion

filed on August 17, 2012, is therefore untimely and filed without leave of the Court. After

a case is set for a pretrial conference, it shall not be continued except as justice requires. LR

Civ 40.2(b). 

The Court has reviewed the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by

Defendant on October 17, 2011, which it denied, in comparison to the motion being urged

now: the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment for Lack of Subject Matter

Jurisdiction. Defendant supports both with an identical exhibit 1, the search warrant

documents, an exhibit 2, Clinton Stoddard’s Declaration of October 14, 2011, and the same

Statement of Facts. The argument in the memorandums are the same, which is that all of the

Defendant’s conduct is covered by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA because

all of the alleged claims were the result of balancing safety concerns related to executing the

search warrant. While the Court accepted that “safety decisions made by law enforcement

Case 4:10-cv-00666-FRZ Document 42 Filed 08/29/12 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

3

agents related to the use of force to enter and secure the premises clearly fall within the

discretionary function,” (Doc. 33: Order at 10), the Court found that the conduct which

allegedly occurred, thereafter, during the seizure of the individual women and children, their

detention and the search to be intertwined with the substantive question of whether there was

excessive use of force and a determination of the relevant facts. This remains true for the

Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment urged now.

To the extent the Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment seeks

reconsideration, “[t]he Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order

absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not

have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Any such motion shall

point out with specificity the matters that the movant believes were overlooked or

misapprehended by the Court, any new matters being brought to the Court’s attention for the

first time and the reasons they were not presented earlier, and any specific modifications

being sought in the Court’s Order. No motion for reconsideration of an Order may repeat

any oral or written argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion

that resulted in the Order. Failure to comply with this subsection may be grounds for denial

of the motion.” LR Civ 7.2(g)(1). Absent good cause shown, and motion for reconsideration

shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of the filing of the Order that is

the subject of the motion.” LR Civ 7.2(g)(2). The Defendant ignores these rules for

reconsideration.

The Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment for Lack of Jurisdiction,

treated here as a Motion for Reconsideration, is untimely pursuant LR Civ. 7.2(g).

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 4:10-cv-00666-FRZ Document 42 Filed 08/29/12 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

Additionally, as a dispositive motion, it is untimely under LR Civ 40.2(b) because the case

is set for a pretrial conference on August 27, 2012.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment

(Doc. 39) is DENIED as untimely.

DATED this 28th day of August, 2012.

Case 4:10-cv-00666-FRZ Document 42 Filed 08/29/12 Page 4 of 4