Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02365/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02365-3/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

Brink's Home Security, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Caliber Holdings Company, LLC, etc.;

Platte River Insurance Company, etc, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2365-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiff’s timely Motion to Amend Complaint. (docket #

28) Plaintiff’s counsel advises that “there is no objection to the Second Amended

Complaint,” id. at 1, and, indeed, no written opposition has been filed to the proposed

amendment. The reasons for the amendment are “to more adequately explain the documents

executed by the parties and the dealings between them which led to the filing of this lawsuit”

and to further clarify the facts supporting the jurisdiction of this Court. Id. The proposed

Second Amended was lodged on April 30, 2007. (docket # 33)

There being no objection and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (docket # 28) is

GRANTED. Pursuant to LRCiv 15.1(c), Plaintiff's lodged Second Amended Complaint

(docket # 33) is deemed filed the date this Order is entered by the Clerk. (LRCiv 15.1(c))

Defendants shall file their Amended Answers or otherwise proceed pursuant to Rule 12,

Case 2:06-cv-02365-LOA Document 35 Filed 05/07/07 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 -

FED.R.CIV.P., if appropriate, or as the parties may stipulate and agree in writing within

twenty (20) days from the date this Order is entered.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority and

Rule 12(f), FED.R.CIV.P., directing the Clerk to strike the incorrect initials (“JAT”) and insert

the correct initials (“LOA”) on the Second Amended Complaint and to strike the following

immaterial language to the right of the caption: “(Amended to Comply With Court’s

Order To Supplement Jurisdictional Allegations).” (docket # 33 at 1) (emphasis in

original).

Plaintiff’s counsel has been directed to use the correct case number which

includes the correct initials in two prior orders, (docket # 18 and # 25 at 6), and by the

Clerk’s staff through three prior NEFs. (docket # 24, # 26 and # 34). Placing the appropriate

case number and initials on pleadings is not a petty requirement. Filing pleadings or other

documents containing the wrong case number and initials creates additional work for the

overburdened clerks and may lead to misfilings of documents and unnecessary delays in the

administration of justice. The Court is at a loss what more a district court can do for counsel

to comply with express orders and LRCiv 7.1(a)(3). For one last time, the Court will order

all counsel to ensure that all pleadings and other documents filed hereinafter contain the

correct number and initials or sanctions may be considered. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all counsel herein shall use the abovecaptioned case number and initials on all future pleadings and documents filed herein.

DATED this 7th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02365-LOA Document 35 Filed 05/07/07 Page 2 of 2