Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00198/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00198-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Dorothy O’Connell, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

David R. Smith, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0198-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Dorothy O’Connell’s Motion to Clarify Status

of Pleadings Filed in Superior Court (Dkt. 20). According to the motion, Plaintiff's counsel

seeks the Court's guidance on the status of pleadings "filed in the Superior Court of Arizona

in Maricopa County before this case was removed to this Court by defendants." (Dkt. 20).

Plaintiff's counsel avers that the parties do not share the same understanding of the meaning

of Document 5 in the docket dated January 31, 2007. Specifically, Plaintiff's counsel

suggests that the parties do not share the same meaning of the following language: "Any

pending matters from the Superior Court are to be refiled in accordance with the rules of this

court." (Dkt. 5). Plaintiff's counsel then reiterates that he seeks "guidance as to whether any

remaining pleadings must be refiled in this Court in accordance with the rules of this court

or whether any pleadings filed in the Superior Court that the parties contend are still not ruled

upon are viable pleadings in this Court." Finally, Plaintiff states that she does not contend

Case 2:07-cv-00198-SMM Document 23 Filed 04/05/07 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 -

that any pleadings filed in Superior Court remain unruled upon however, counsel is "not sure

whether defendants agree."

As to the interpretation of the language found in Document 5, the Court does not find

this document to be lacking in clarity. The Clerk of the Court was merely directing counsel

to file all matters relevant to this case in accordance with the Rules of this particular Court,

i.e. in accordance with the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as opposed

to the rules of the court from which the case was removed.

With regard to Plaintiff's counsel's request that the Court provide guidance as whether

any remaining pleadings must be refiled in this Court or whether any motions that may be

pending in Superior Court are viable pleadings in this Court, the Court is not familiar with

any procedure by which it would provide the parties with information regarding the status

of pleadings that the parties themselves have filed in the Superior Court. Moreover, it is

essential that the Court refrain from providing parties with anything that resembles an

advisory opinion. If the Court were to indicate the measure of viability of particular motions,

it may be interpreted as an advisory opinion. The Court concludes that it is for individual

counsel to determine whether or not the removed pleadings comport with the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, as well as the Local Rules of this Court, and, if not, whether an

amendment or supplement is required to bring them into conformity. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify Status of

Pleadings Filed in Superior Court.

DATED this 4th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00198-SMM Document 23 Filed 04/05/07 Page 2 of 2