Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02482/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02482-1/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

1

The parties have had the opportunity to submit briefs in support of their respective positions

and the Court would not find oral argument helpful in resolving this matter. Accordingly, the Court

finds the pending motion suitable for decision without oral argument.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Javier Torres, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v.

Terry Goddard, Attorney General of

Arizona, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-2482-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a "Motion for Open Extension of Time to Respond to

Allegations of Plaintiffs' Complaint Not Addressed by Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to

Dismiss" (Dkt. 25) filed defendants Terry Goddard, the Attorney General of the State of

Arizona, and Cameron Holmes, an Assistant Attorney General. Plaintiffs's filed a Response

in opposition to Defendants's motion on December 5, 2006. (Dkt. 27). In turn, Defendants's

filed a reply on December 15, 2006. (Dkt. 30). After considering the arguments raised by

the parties in their briefs, the Court issues the following Order.1

Case 2:06-cv-02482-SMM Document 32 Filed 01/10/07 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

Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d § 1346 (West 2006).

- 2 -

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs's filed a four-count Complaint on October 18, 2006. (Dkt. 1). On November

20, 2006, Defendants moved to dismiss the portions of Plaintiffs's Complaint asserting claims

for monetary relief pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt.

24). Because Defendants's Motion to Dismiss only addressed the portions of Plaintiffs's

Complaint asserting claims for monetary relief, Defendants filed the instant motion

requesting the Court to grant them an open extension of time to answer those portions of the

Complaint not addressed in the Motion to Dismiss.

DISCUSSION

The issue pending before the Court is whether filing a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to

Dismiss which addresses only some of the claims in the Complaint suspends the time for

responding to the remaining claims as well. Under the rules, a defendant must file an answer

within 20 days of being served with the Complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). However,

when a motion is made on any of the grounds enumerated in Rule 12(b), the responsive

pleading is due within 10 days after notice of the court's action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4). 

Based on the language of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

unclear whether service of a Rule 12(b) motion directed at only parts of a pleading enlarges

the time for answering the remaining portions of the pleading. Of the courts that have ruled

on this issue, "the weight of the limited authority on this point is to the effect that the filing

of a motion that only addresses part of a complaint suspends the time to respond to the entire

complaint, not just to the claims that are the subject of the motion."2 See e.g. Finnegan v.

University of Rochester Medical Center, 180 F.R.D. 247 (W.D.N.Y., 1998); Brocksopp

Engineering, Inc. v. Bach-Simpson, Ltd., 136 F.R.D. 485 ( E.D. Wis. 1991); Godlewski v.

Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., 210 F.R.D. 571 (E.D. Va. 2002). The rationale

underlying the majority view is that the minority approach requires duplicative sets of

pleadings in the event that the Rule 12(b) motion is denied and causes confusion over the

Case 2:06-cv-02482-SMM Document 32 Filed 01/10/07 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 -

proper scope of discovery while the motion is pending. Godlewski, 210 F.R.D. at 572. On

the other hand, the minority approach prevents a party from using a partial Rule 12(b) motion

to delay adjudication of the remaining portion of the action. Id. 

This Court prefers the majority view, which extends the defendant's time to file a

responsive pleading until 10 days after notice of the court's ruling even where the 12(b)

motion challenges only some of the claims in the Complaint. The Court recognizes that there

is a possibility that partial Rule 12(b) motions will be used as a dilatory tactic under the

majority view; nonetheless, the Court finds that refusing to extend time for unchallenged

portions of a Complaint adds superfluous wrinkles to a lawsuit in its infancy. In this Court's

view, the majority approach is more efficient because it eliminates confusion over the proper

scope of discovery.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants's Motion for Open Extension of Time to Respond

to Allegations of Plaintiffs' Complaint Not Addressed by Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion

to Dismiss (Dkt. 25) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file an answer to the entire

Complaint with 10 days after notice of the Court's ruling on Defendants's Rule 12(b)(6)

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims for Monetary Relief. (Dkt. 24). 

DATED this 10th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02482-SMM Document 32 Filed 01/10/07 Page 3 of 3