Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00384/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00384-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ROBERT ALAN KEMP,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

DMI- AVIATION, INC., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-384-TUC-FRZ (BPV)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s untimely motion for extension

of time to Respond to this Court’s Order to Show Cause (Doc. No. 61), Plaintiff’s

untimely response to this Court’s Order to Show Cause (Doc. No. 64), an opposition

to Plaintiff’s motion for extension, and a motion to dismiss with prejudice by

Defendant Morgan (Doc. No. 62), a motion to dismiss the case, with prejudice, for

failure to comply with the Court’s order of May 21, 2009, and the Order to Show

cause issued by this Court on June 26, 2009 by Defendants Hammeroff, (Doc. No.

63), the Plaintiff’s untimely motion for extension of time to file a reply and response

to Defendants’ motions (Doc. No. 66), and Plaintiff’s untimely reply and response

(Doc. No. 67.) 

This action was filed on July 3, 2008. On November 7, 2008, the Magistrate

Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of the

complaint. On May 21, 2009, the District Court issued an order addressing the Report

Case 4:08-cv-00384-FRZ Document 68 Filed 09/02/09 Page 1 of 9
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-

and Recommendation, as well as 21 other pending motions, 15 of which were filed

by Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 59.) 

The District Court ordered that the First Amended Complaint be dismissed for

failure to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8 and 9, and further for failure to

state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc.

No. 59.) Plaintiff was granted 30 days from the filing date of the order to file a

second amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

the Local Rules of Practice and the orders of the Court. (Id) Defendant’s motions to

dismiss were partially granted, and all other pending matters were denied as moot.

(Id) The District Court referred the matter back to the Magistrate Judge for report and

recommendation. (Id)

More than thirty days passed and Plaintiff failed to file a second amended

complaint. On June 29, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order to Show Cause

why the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply by filing a writing with the

Court on July 13, 2009. (Doc. No. 60.) The order admonished Plaintiff that if he did

not comply with the order the case would be dismissed. 

On July 16, 2009, Plaintiff filed an untimely Motion for Extension of time to

File Motion for Clarification and to Toll Time to File Second Amended Complaint

and Motion for Clarification and to Toll Time to File Second Amended Complaint

and Notice of Intent to File Supplemental Evidence. (Doc. No. 61.) Plaintiff asserted

that an additional 75 days were needed to obtain a clarification of the Court’s Order

entered by the Court on May 21, 2009, and to file papers in actions pending in another

“directly related case” currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit (09-70576). Plaintiff

also asserted that he was relocating back to the State of Nevada in time to file his

second amended complaint as a diverse party in this action. (Doc. No. 61, at 3.)

Petitioner asserted that it was critical that he obtain a decision by the Ninth Circuit as

Case 4:08-cv-00384-FRZ Document 68 Filed 09/02/09 Page 2 of 9
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-

it would directly bear on both the jurisdictional and legal basis of the charges brought

by Plaintiff within his second amended complaint. 

On July 28, 2009, Defendant Kent Morgan filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s

motion for extension, and a motion to dismiss with prejudice. (Doc. No. 62.) On

August 4, 2009, Defendants Hammeroff filed a motion to dismiss the case, with

prejudice, for failure to comply with the Court’s order of May 21, 2009, and the Order

to Show cause issued by this Court on June 26, 2009. (Doc. No. 63.) 

On August 18, 2009, Plaintiff filed an “Interim Supplemental Supporting

Evidence and Preliminary Official Letter Communication [July 27, 2009] To: Ms.

Candice M. Will, FBI - Assistant Director, (“OPR”) ...” (Doc. No. 64.) This paper

contained 27 pages of rambling, incoherent factual and legal theories proposed by

Plaintiff to be the basis for his second amended complaint, and an 80 page document

consisting of a caption and table of contents for a second amended complaint, along

with numerous exhibits, but no body of the complaint. (Doc No. 64, at 29-108.) On

August 26, 2009, Plaintiff submitted a Plaintiff Submission of [Evidence], consisting

of three paragraphs and an attached affidavit. (Doc. No. 65.) 

On August 31, 2009, Plaintiff submitted a Motion for Extension of Time to

File Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant Kent D. Morgan’s’ [Opposition to Plaintiff’s

Motion for Extension of Tiem to File Second Amended Compalint, - Opposition to

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Clarification, - Opoosition

to Pliantiff’s Motion to Toll Time to File Second Amended Complaint, - Motion to

Dismiss with Prejudice]. (Doc. No. 66.) Plaintiff noted that he believed that his reply

was already late, but that Defendant’s had, from the inception of the action, filed

“virtually No Coherent Opposition nor Substantiated Objections, to ANY Evidence

Submitted by Plaintiff, only procedural Opposition based on FORM and or

PROCEDURE.” (Id, at 2-3.) Plaintiff asserted several factual arguments regarding

the evidence he has submitted, and again argued that “In order to comply with the

Case 4:08-cv-00384-FRZ Document 68 Filed 09/02/09 Page 3 of 9
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 -4-

Court’s Order entered May 21st., 2009, Plaintiff has No Alternative but to Re-Locate

to another Federal Jurisdiction, and therefore as a result, Plaintiff is Re-Locating on

September 4th., 2009, to Las Vegas, Nevada. This will enable Plaintiff to maintain

Diversity Jurisdiction as necessary to enable Plaintiff to now lawfully name

Attorney(s): WALKER, WOODS, and BREEN, as Defendant-Person(s), within the

instant proceeding within Plaintiff’s: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT to be filed

on September 4th., 2009.” (Id, at 4.) Plaintiff filed his reply and response the same

date. (Doc No. 67.) 

DISCUSSION

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f the

plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant

may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” In Link v. Wabash Railroad

Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962), the Supreme Court recognized that a federal district

court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute, even

though the language of Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appears to

require a motion from a party. Moreover, in appropriate circumstances, the Court

may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute even without notice or hearing. Id

at 633.

Plaintiff failed to file his second amended complaint within the 30 day deadline

ordered by the District Judge in the case, and, when given the opportunity to explain

why he failed to do so, filed an untimely motion for an extension of time to file his

second amended complaint. The Court notes that, again, Kemp did not make his

request prior to the expiration of the court imposed deadline for service. Where a

request for additional time is made after the expiration of a specified deadline, the

Court may grant an extension where the failure to act is the result of excusable

neglect. Rule 6(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.

Case 4:08-cv-00384-FRZ Document 68 Filed 09/02/09 Page 4 of 9
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 -5-

 Although difficult to summarize completely, the Court finds that the reasons

provided by Plaintiff do not demonstrate excusable neglect nor good cause to excuse

the Plaintiff’s failure to timely file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff asserts that

he has a case pending in the Ninth Circuit, but provides no legally sufficient

explanation for why he must await a decision by the Ninth Circuit before filing a

second amended complaint in this case. Plaintiff also asserted that he needed to

obtain a clarification from the District Court regarding the May 21, 2009 order, but

did not explain what clarification was needed, why it would delay the filing of the

second amended complaint, nor did Plaintiff ever seek such clarification. Plaintiff

also argues that he needed to ensure that he relocated to the State of Nevada in time

to file his second amended complaint as a diverse party and that his wife terminated

her employment to successfully comply with the Court’s Order so that the Plaintiff

can successfully prosecute this case. Diversity of citizenship is determined at the time

the original, rather than the amended, complaint is filed. Co-Efficient Systems v. CSL

Industries, Inc., 812 F.2d 556, 557 (9th Cir. 1987); Morongo Band of Mission Indians

v. California State, 85 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff’s wife’s employment has

no relevance to Plaintiff’s response to this Court’s order. Finally, Plaintiff asserts in

his response that “only now at this very moment in time has Plaintiff discovered the

precise operable unlawful basis in which Defendant-Person(s) have factually

interfered with Plaintiffs actions to engage in the execution of interstate commerce.”

This appeal to the Court based on a last minute factual discovery is particularly

disingenuous and unconvincing, having been used unsuccessfully by Plaintiff in a

previously filed case involving the same defendants and the same issues as the present

action. (See CV 07-428-TUC-CKJ, Doc. No. 7, 11.) The Court finds Kemp has

failed to show good cause, or excusable neglect, Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), to grant additional

time to file a second amended complaint. 

Case 4:08-cv-00384-FRZ Document 68 Filed 09/02/09 Page 5 of 9
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 -6-

Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, “the [C]ourt must construe the

pleadings liberally and must afford the [P]laintiff the benefit of any doubt.” Lopez v.

Department of Health Services, 939 F.2d 881, 883-84 (9th Cir. 1991)(quoting

Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.1988).

See also Balistreri, 901 F.2d at 699(“court recognizes that it has a duty to ensure that

pro se litigants do not lose their right to a hearing on the merits of their claim due to

technical procedural requirements.”) Moreover, although proceeding pro se, Plaintiff

is nevertheless bound by the federal and local rules of procedure. See Ghazali, 46

F.3d at 54 (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)). Plaintiff has had

ample opportunity and direction by this Court to file an amended complaint that meets

the basic requirements of Rule 8(a) and the heightened requirements under Rule 9(b)

alleging fraud. The District Court clearly explained the requirements of these rules

to Plaintiff in its Order dated May 21, 2009, but Plaintiff has failed to comply or show

good cause for the failure.

In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court

order, the district court must weigh five factors including: “(1) the public’s interest

in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3)

the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of

cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)(citations omitted). 

This case has lingered for over a year without filing of a sufficient complaint.

During that time, Plaintiff has filed numerous motions, most of them lengthy, and

most of them difficult to decipher, and procedurally inappropriate. The first two

dismissal factors-the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the

trial court's interest in docket control-strongly support the dismissal of this action.

This case has consumed a large amounts of the court's valuable time that it could have

Case 4:08-cv-00384-FRZ Document 68 Filed 09/02/09 Page 6 of 9
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 -7-

devoted to other major and serious criminal and civil cases on its docket. The district

court must have the ability to preserve its power to manage its dockets without being

subject to the endless vexatious noncompliance of litigants. See Ferdick, 963 F.2d

1261. Plaintiff has demonstrated that he is unable to timely comply with the deadlines

imposed by the rules of court or by order of the court. This has necessitated much

time spent by this Court and the District Court to manage a case in which Plaintiff has

demonstrated no intent or good faith effort to comply with proper procedure. 

As to prejudice, the Court previously noted, “Prolix, confusing complaints ...

impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges.” Mchenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,

1179 (9th cir. 1996). A court may consider ‘[t]he burden imposed by plaintiff on

defendants in related litigation” and the amount of time and money spent in defending

against poorly drafted proceeding sin present and related actions. Id (citing Nevijel

v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674-75 (9th Cir. 1981). The District Court

reviewed the docket in previously filed actions, and found that they indicated that

Plaintiff Kemp and/or Aviation Technologies LTD have failed to procedurally

prosecute the actions and include numerous requests for extensions. This Court

previously recommended dismissal in the instant case for failure to prosecute. 

Defendant Morgan asserts that this case has been in existence now for many

months without the filing of a coherent Complaint. Morgan argues that there is

prejudice to Defendant since Plaintiff has filed fraud and racketeering charges against

him which have been outstanding for a considerable period of time, and that the

stigma of operating within the business community with such outstanding charges

carries a heavy toll on any businessperson in the form of disclosing information

regarding pending lawsuits when filling out business questionnaires and financial

affidavits when applying for loans, and that Defendant Morgan has suffered this

stigma now for a considerable period of time. 

Case 4:08-cv-00384-FRZ Document 68 Filed 09/02/09 Page 7 of 9
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 -8-

Defendants Hammeroff argue that they have “waited for Plaintiff to state his

claims in clear enough language for a person of ordinary intelligence to understand

what relief he seeks and his theory of liability. No such writing has been forthcoming.

Instead, Plainiff files one voluminous document after another seeking further

extensions of time to make claims arising out of a decade old transaction.” This Court

agrees. 

Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff’s

failure to comply with the rules of court and Court orders in this case prevents the

case from proceeding in the foreseeable future. The fourth factor, as always, weighs

against dismissal. The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic

alternative is available.

Rule 41(b) provides that a dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as an

adjudication upon the merits "[u]nless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise

specifies." In the instant case, upon consideration of the risk of prejudice to

Defendants, Plaintiff’s blatant disregard for court procedure, the numerous

opportunities the Court has provided Plaintiff to comply with proper procedure and

the specific direction the Court has provided to Plaintiff to assist in his compliance,

the numerous the Court finds that a dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. The

Complaint and this action should therefore be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Magistrate

Judge recommends that the Complaint (Doc. No. 1) and this action be DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with an order of the court.

Case 4:08-cv-00384-FRZ Document 68 Filed 09/02/09 Page 8 of 9
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 -9-

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections

within 10 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation.

A party may respond to another party's objections within ten days after being served

with a copy thereof. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). If objections are not timely filed they may

be deemed waived. The parties are advised that any objections filed are to be

identified with the following case number: CV 08-0384-TUC-FRZ. 

DATED this 2nd day of September, 2009.

Case 4:08-cv-00384-FRZ Document 68 Filed 09/02/09 Page 9 of 9