Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01386/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01386-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

 

Saguaro Medical Associates, P.C., an

Arizona professional corporation; and

Rakesh Malhotra, M.D., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Banner Health, an Arizona corporation,

d/b/a Banner Thunderbird Medical

Center,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1386 PHX-DGC

ORDER

On July 24, 2009, the deadline for filing dispositive motions (Dkt. #24), Defendant

filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion to exceed page limits. Dkt. ##108, 110.

Because the summary judgment motion was filed prior to the granting of the motion to

exceed page limits, the Clerk re-entered the summary judgment motion as a lodged

document. Dkt. ##111-12. The summary judgment motion was re-filed by the Clerk when

the Court granted the motion to exceed page limits on August 5, 2009. Dkt. ##113-14.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to strike Defendant’s summary judgment motion on

the ground that it was untimely filed. Dkt. #116. The motion has been fully briefed.

Dkt. ##117-18. The Court will deny the motion.

Motions to strike are governed by Rule 7.2(m) of the Court’s Local Rules of Civil

Procedure. Plaintiffs’ motion fails to address this rule and will therefore be denied. Even

if the Court were to consider the motion on its merits, the Court would deny the motion. The

Case 2:08-cv-01386-DGC Document 121 Filed 08/31/09 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 -

Court construes Defendant’s motion to exceed page limits as also requesting an extension

of time to file its summary judgment motion, and the Court will grant that request. Plaintiffs

shall file a response to the summary judgment motion by September 11, 2009.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike (Dkt. #116) is denied.

2. Plaintiffs shall file a response to Defendant’s summary judgment motion

(Dkt. #114) by September 11, 2009.

DATED this 31st day of August, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01386-DGC Document 121 Filed 08/31/09 Page 2 of 2