Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00110/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00110-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

City of Phoenix, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Leo A. Daly Company, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-110-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend time to answer until ten days after

the Court rules on the pending partial motion to dismiss. There is a split among district

courts as to whether efficiency is best served by requiring an answer immediately on the

claims that are not subject to the partial motion to dismiss (see Gerlach v. Michigan Bell

Telephone Co., 448 F.Supp 1168, 1174 (E.D. Mich. 1978)), or permitting defendant an

extension of time to answer all claims until after the Court rules on the partial motion to

dismiss(see Brocksopp Engineering v. Bach-Simpson Ltd., 136 F.R.D. 485, 486 (E.D. Wisc.

1991)). Comparing these cases, this Court found and continues to find that, because

discovery will go forward in this case regardless of how the Court rules on the partial motion

to dismiss, efficiency is best served by beginning the discovery process immediately. Based

on this finding, the Court previously denied a motion to extend time to answer (Doc. #8).

Defendant moved for reconsideration via a stipulation to extend time to answer (Doc.

#9). The Court continues to find that answering the count(s) that are not the subject of the

Case 2:07-cv-00110-JAT Document 11 Filed 02/12/07 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 -

motion to dismiss is the most efficient way to proceed. Nonetheless, the Court will grant this

extension at the parties' repeated request. However, to ensure the prompt progress of this

case, the Court will move forward with the Rule 16 scheduling conference at this time.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the stipulation to extend time to answer until ten days after the

Court rules on the pending motion to dismiss (Doc. #9) is granted;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the stipulation to extend time to respond to the

motion to dismiss (until February 12, 2007) (Doc. #10) is granted;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting oral argument on the pending motion to

dismiss (Doc. #7) for April 2, 2007 at 11:00 a.m.;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to assist the court reporter, the parties shall

prepare and bring to oral argument a Table of Authorities, in alphabetical order, which

includes all of the authorities on which the parties will rely at oral argument; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the order setting Rule 16 conference will follow.

DATED this 12th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00110-JAT Document 11 Filed 02/12/07 Page 2 of 2