Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01885/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01885-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Craig Thompson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Streetsmart, Inc., a Delaware corporation;

Dave Batt, an Illinois resident, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1885-PHX-LOA

ORDER

The Court has twice ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to use proper capitalization in

the caption of this case as required by LRCiv.7.1(a)(3). (Docs. 5, 10) The Court has also

explained why compliance with the Local Rules is required and even forewarned Plaintiff

“that future violations of LRCiv.7.1(a)(3) will likely result in the striking of such a nonconforming pleading or motion.” (Docs. 10 at 1-2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment

and Request for Hearing, Memorandum of Points and Authorities etc., Request and

Affidavit for Entry of Default Judgement etc., and Proposed Order Granting Default

Judgment, docs. 11-14, violate the District of Arizona’s Local Rules.

The Ninth Circuit has recently “explain[ed], yet again, the importance of

following a district court’s local rules. ‘District courts have broad discretion in interpreting

and applying their local rules.’” Simmons v. Navajo County, ___ F.3d ___, 2010 WL

2509181, * 3 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Miranda v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 710 F.2d 516, 521 (9th

Cir. 1983)). Local rules have “the force of law.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, ___ U.S. ___, 130

Case 2:10-cv-01885-LOA Document 15 Filed 10/22/10 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 -

S.Ct. 705, 710 (2010) (quoting. Weil v. Neary, 278 U.S. 160, 169 (1929)). They “are binding

upon the parties and upon the court, and a departure from local rules that affects substantial

rights requires reversal.”Professional Programs Group v. Department of Commerce, 29 F.3d

1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and Request

for Hearing, Memorandum of Points and Authorities etc., Request and Affidavit for Entry

of Default Judgement etc. and Proposed Order Granting Default Judgment, docs. 11-14, are

hereby STRICKEN without prejudice.

Dated this 22nd day of October, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01885-LOA Document 15 Filed 10/22/10 Page 2 of 2