Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08096/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08096-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

NANCY SUNDELL-BAHRD, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

BANK UNITED FSB, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-8096-PCT-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for a Court Order for Money

Damages for Prohibited Activities, (Doc. 6), and Motion for Debt Collector Moving an

Unauthorized Practice of Law (Summary Judgment), (Doc. 15); and Defendants’ Motion to

Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 17), and Motion for Leave to Attach

Exhibits A Through D to Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 18).

I. PENDING MOTIONS

Plaintiff’s first motion, filed June 9, 2010, asks this Court order damages based upon

the alleged illegal activities of the Defendants. The Court must deny this motion as both

improper and moot. The proper place for Plaintiff to request relief, including damages, is in

her Complaint, not by separate motion. Accordingly, this Motion is improper and must be

denied as such. Additionally, the Court notes that on July 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed her First

Amended Complaint. (Doc. 14). Even had this Court been inclined to read Plaintiff’s

Case 3:10-cv-08096-JWS Document 20 Filed 12/01/10 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 -

motion for damages in conjunction with her Complaint, its ability to do so as been mooted

by the filing of the First Amended Complaint. The motion is denied.

Plaintiff has also filed a Motion entitled Motion for Debt Collector Moving an

Unauthorized Practice of Law (Summary Judgment). This motion is both labeled as and

appears to be a motion for summary judgment, as it asks this Court to summarily decide that

Defendants have committed fraud. In response, Defendants have filed a motion asking this

Court to strike Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, arguing that it does not comply with

LRCiv 56, which governs motions for summary judgment. Defendants are correct. Rule

56 requires that “[a]ny party filing a motion for summary judgment must file a statement,

separate from the motion and memorandum of law, setting forth the material fact on which

the party relies in support of the motion.” Plaintiff has not filed the required statement of

facts, let alone provided this Court with any other discovery materials or affidavits from this

Court might be able to determine “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED.R.CIV.P. 56(c)(2).

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Strike is granted.

Finally, in filing their pending Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 16), Defendants neglected

to attach the exhibits on which that motion relies. Accordingly, they have filed the instant

 Motion for Leave to Attach Exhibits A Through D to Motion to Dismiss. Finding good

cause therein, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion. The missing, exhibits, which have

been attached to Defendants Motion for Leave to Attach, shall be used in this Court’s

consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Defendants do not need to re-file the

exhibits.

II. RULE 7.2(i) CAUTIONARY NOTICE

As a result of this Order, the only outstanding motion in this case is Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss, which was filed August 27, 2010. As of this date, Plaintiff has not filed

a response to the motion. LRCiv 7.2(i) states in relevant part: "[I]f the opposing party does

not serve and file the required answering memoranda . . . such non-compliance may be

deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the

Case 3:10-cv-08096-JWS Document 20 Filed 12/01/10 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 -

motion summarily.” See also Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652 (9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff

should take notice that failure to respond to the Defendants’ Motion by the deadline set forth

in this Order will result in the Court deeming the Defendants' Motion as being unopposed

and consented to by the Plaintiff. See Brydges, 18 F.3d at 652 (affirming the district court's

summary granting of a motion for summary judgment under LRCiv 7.2(i) when non-moving

party was given express warning of consequences of failing to respond). Accordingly, the

Court will give Plaintiff until close of business on Monday December 13, 2010, to file a

responsive memorandum. Should she fail to do so, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be

summarily granted and this case will be closed.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for a Court Order for Money

Damages for Prohibited Activities. (Doc. 6).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s

Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 17).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Attach

Exhibits A Through D to Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 18).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must file a response to Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss no later than close of business on Monday December 13, 2010. Failure

to comply with this deadline will result in the summary granting of Defendants’ motion

pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i)

DATED this 30th day of November, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08096-JWS Document 20 Filed 12/01/10 Page 3 of 3