Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00138/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00138-1/pdf.json

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Allen, a married man, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Quest Online, LLC, an Arizona limited

liability company; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-138-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Order of Dismissal

for Defendant Gregory Wexler (Doc. 106), Motion for Relief from and Reconsideration to

Remand re Order (Doc. 107), Motion to Amend/Correct (Doc. 111), Motion for

Reconsideration of Motion for Preliminary Injunctions (Doc. 114), and Motion to Strike

Motion (Doc. 124). Also pending is Defendants’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction re

Plaintiff’s Abuses of Process (Doc. 116).

After consideration, and in the case of one of the motion’s briefing, the Court has

determined that none of the motions have merit or present a basis on which the Court should

reconsider its previous rulings. Defendants have adequately established that they are diverse

and therefore the matter was appropriately removed to this Court. Therefore, each of the

above motions for reconsideration are denied.

Also pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc.

Case 2:11-cv-00138-GMS Document 136 Filed 11/09/11 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 -

116). The motion is predicated upon Plaintiff’s contacting the Florida Police Department and

the Chandler Police Department and making allegations against Defendants that are allegedly

unfounded. There is no allegation that either of those inquiries filed with either the Chandler

or Florida Police Departments resulted in any judicial process. The underlying tort upon

which Defendants seek the injunction is the abuse of process. The first element of such a tort

is (1) “a willful act in the use of judicial process.” Nienstedt v. Wetzel, 133 Ariz. 348, 353

(App. 1983). Defendants offer no support for their argument that an assertion of illegal

conduct to a police officer with the request to investigate as, in and of itself, amount to

judicial process. Therefore, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that they are likely to

prevail on the merits of their claim and their request for a preliminary injunction is denied

without prejudice. As a result, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion for

Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 124) is denied as moot.

Finally, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 111). That motion is

denied without prejudice. In filing the motion, Plaintiff has failed to file the amended

complaint authorized in its September 22, 2011 Order (Doc. 105). The motion, to the extent

it seeks leave to file an amended complaint in excess of the amended complaint authorized

by this Court’s September 22, 2011 Order, fails to comply with the requirements of LRCiv

15.1.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Denying the Motion for Relief from Order of Dismissal for Defendant Gregory

Wexler (Doc. 106).

2. Denying the Motion for Reconsideration re Order on Motion to Dismiss (Doc.

107).

3. Denying without prejudice the Motion to Amend/Correct (Doc. 111).

4. Denying the Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

(Doc. 114).

5. Denying without prejudice the Motion for Preliminary Injunction re Plaintiff’s

Abuses of Process (Doc. 116).

Case 2:11-cv-00138-GMS Document 136 Filed 11/09/11 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 -

6. Denying as moot the Motion to Strike Motion for Preliminary Injunction re

Plaintiff’s Abuses of Process (Doc. 124).

DATED this 9th day of November, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00138-GMS Document 136 Filed 11/09/11 Page 3 of 3