Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02073/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02073-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Wrongful Death

---

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 

Frank Rodriguez, surviving father of Daniel 

Frank Rodriguez, individually and as copersonal representative of the Estate of 

Daniel Frank Rodriguez, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

City of Phoenix, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV11-02073-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant City of Phoenix (“the City”) moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against 

it. Doc. 4. The motion has been fully briefed. Docs. 4, 5, 6. For the following reasons, 

the Court will deny the motion.1

I. Background. 

This action stems from Daniel Rodriguez’s death following an altercation with 

Phoenix Police Department Officer Richard Chrisman on October 5, 2010. Plaintiff is 

Rodriguez’s father. On October 4, 2011, he filed a complaint on behalf of himself and as 

“co-personal representative” of Rodriguez’s estate. Doc. 1-1, at 4. The complaint raises 

claims against the City for wrongful death, failure to train or supervise, and loss of 

familial association. 

 

1

 Plaintiffs’ request for oral argument (Doc. 5) is denied because the issues are fully briefed and argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). 

Case 2:11-cv-02073-DGC Document 8 Filed 01/18/12 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

 Before Plaintiff filed his complaint, Rodriguez’s mother, Elvira Fernandez, filed a 

nearly identical lawsuit in this court. Doc. 4-1. That case is currently pending before 

Judge Martone. CV11-02001-FJM. Her complaint also raises claims, both individually 

and as “co-personal representative” of Rodriguez’s estate, against the City for wrongful 

death, failure to train or supervise, and loss of familial association. 

II. Discussion. 

The City initially raises two grounds for dismissal: that Plaintiff’s claims are 

barred because of the pending action before Judge Martone, and that Plaintiff’s claims 

fail to meet the pleading standard articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). 

Doc. 4. Plaintiff responds that his wrongful death and survival claims should be 

consolidated, not dismissed, and that his claims satisfy Iqbal’s pleading standards. 

Doc. 5. In its reply, the City agrees with Plaintiff’s request to consolidate and notes that 

Elvira Fernandez does not object to this arrangement. Doc. 6, at 1-2, n.1. It asks this 

Court to consolidate the case before Judge Martone with this case, join Elvira Fernandez 

as a required plaintiff for the survival claim, and order Plaintiff and Fernandez to elect 

one statutory plaintiff for the wrongful death claim and file an amended complaint. Id.

at 4. The City does not pursue its pleading argument, noting that “[b]ecause Plaintiffs 

will have the opportunity to amend, there is no reason to continue litigating whether the 

allegations in the original complaint sufficiently state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted.” Id. at 4, n.4. 

 The Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the District of Arizona provide that a 

motion to consolidate “shall contain the captions of all the cases sought to be 

consolidated, be filed in each case and shall be heard by the District Judge assigned the 

lowest case number.” LRCiv 42.1(b). If the parties so desire, they must file a motion to 

consolidate in Judge Martone’s court because that case has been assigned the lower case 

number. 

Case 2:11-cv-02073-DGC Document 8 Filed 01/18/12 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant City of Phoenix’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 4) is 

denied. 

 Dated this 18th day of January, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-02073-DGC Document 8 Filed 01/18/12 Page 3 of 3