Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00405/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00405-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 20:1080 Student Loan Recovery

---

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

Marc Hobe’, a single man, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

United States Department of Education;

Pioneer Recovery; and James Farrar,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-405-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Marc Hobe’ commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint against the

United States Department of Education (“DOE”), James Farrar, and Pioneer Recovery on

February 27, 2009. Dkt #1. The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Dkt. #29.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 15, 2009. Dkt. #30.

On July 29, 2009, DOE and Farrar filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint

pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #32.

Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion as required by the Court’s Local Rules of Civil

Procedure. See LRCiv 7.2(c), 12.1(b).

The Court previously has advised Plaintiff that he must become familiar with, and

follow, both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Local Rules. Dkt. #29 at 8.

Local Rule 7.2 provides that if a defendant files a motion to dismiss and the plaintiff does not

serve and file the required response, “such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the

. . . granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.”

LRCiv 7.2(i). The Court will give Plaintiff until September 18, 2009 to file a response to

Case 2:09-cv-00405-DGC Document 34 Filed 09/04/09 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 -

Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #32). If he fails to do so, the Court will consider

summarily granting the motion. 

Defendants also have filed a notice of suggestion of bankruptcy, asserting that

Plaintiff lacks standing to prosecute this matter given his filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy

protection on June 30, 2009. Dkt. #31. The Court will require Plaintiff to file a response to

the notice by September 18, 2009.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall, by September 18, 2009, file a response to the

motion to dismiss (Dkt. #32) and a response to the notice of suggestion of bankruptcy

(Dkt. #31).

DATED this 4th day of September, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00405-DGC Document 34 Filed 09/04/09 Page 2 of 2