Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01471/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01471-0/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

1

On December 1, 2009, Local Rule 7.2(c) was amended to allow fourteen (14) days

to respond to a 12(b)(6) motion. See LRCiv. 7.2(c). 

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

TAJUDEEN O. OLADIRAN; et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-01471-PHX-GMS

ORDER

The instant civil action was removed from Maricopa County Superior Court on July

16, 2009. (Dkt. # 1.) On July 27, 2009, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging a

violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) as well as

several state law claims. (Dkt. # 16.) 

On September 23, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss several of Plaintiffs’

claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. # 40.) As of December

2, 2009, Plaintiffs have failed to file a response to the Motion. When Defendants filed their

Motion, Local Rule 7.2(c) provided that “[t]he opposing party shall . . . have ten (10) days

after service in a civil or criminal case within which to serve and file a responsive

memorandum” to a Motion to Dismiss.1

 Rather than file a response, however, Plaintiffs filed

a separate Motion to Strike. (Dkt. # 42.) The Motion to Strike does not address the specific

Case 2:09-cv-01471-GMS Document 53 Filed 12/03/09 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

Plaintiffs’ failure to file a response may be a result of the parties’ October 15, 2009

stipulation in which they agreed not to file motions or pleadings prior to or during mediation.

(Dkt. # 51.) The Court has since learned that recent efforts towards mediation have failed.

Regardless, the Court took no action on the stipulation; thus, the time frame for filing

responsive memoranda has not been extended. (See Dkt. # 52.)

- 2 -

substantive arguments presented in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (See id.) Therefore, as

of December 2, 2009, Plaintiffs have not filed a timely responsive memoranda to the Motion

to Dismiss, nor have they sought extensions of time to do so.2

 Under the Local Rules,

Plaintiffs’ failure “may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion[.]” See

LRCiv. 7.2(i). Thus, in the instant case, summary dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims could result

if the Motion to Strike is denied and Plaintiffs fail to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss.

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file and serve a responsive

memorandum to the Motion to Dismiss before 5:00 p.m. on December 17, 2009. Should

Plaintiffs fail to comply, the Court may deem Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose the Motion as a

waiver, and may grant the Motion on that basis. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiffs intend to file a reply memorandum

to the Motion to Strike, they shall also have until 5:00 p.m. on December 17, 2009 to do so.

DATED this 3rd day of December, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01471-GMS Document 53 Filed 12/03/09 Page 2 of 2