Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00866/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00866-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mahai Dutciuc, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Meritage Homes of Arizona, Inc., an

Arizona corporation; MTH Mortgage,

LLC, an Arizona limited liability

company, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-866-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Related NonTaxable Expenses filed by Defendant Meritage Homes of Arizona, Inc. (“Meritage”).

(Doc. 74), and Motion for Summary Ruling on Its Motion for Attorney’s Fees and NonTaxable Costs. (Doc. 83).

I. BACKGROUND

On September 16, 2010, this Court entered an order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims

against Meritage with prejudice because it found that Plaintiff’s Third Amended

Complaint failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc.

72). Meritage subsequently filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees on September 30, 2010,

(Doc. 74), and a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of that motion on

November 15, 2010. (Doc. 80). Because Plaintiff has not filed a response, on December

Case 2:09-cv-00866-MHM Document 85 Filed 02/09/11 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 -

21, 2010, Meritage filed a Motion for Summary Ruling on Its Motion for Attorney’s Fees

and Non-Taxable Costs, requesting that this Court summarily grant its request for

attorney’s fees pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i). (Doc. 83).

II. RULE 7.2(i) CAUTIONARY NOTICE

As of this date, Plaintiff, who is a represented party, has not filed a response to

Meritage’s 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

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

Court will give Plaintiff until close of business on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 to show

cause why Meritage’s motion for attorneys’ fees should not be summarily granted and, if

he believes good cause exists, to file a responsive memoranda. Should Plaintiff fail to

perform either of these tasks, Meritage’s motion for attorneys’ fees will be summarily

granted. 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). The Court further notes that it

will only consider Plaintiff’s response if he is able to show good cause for his failure to

file a timely response.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Plaintiff must both show cause and file a

response to Meritage’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Related Non-Taxable Expenses

no later than the close of business on Tuesday, February 15, 2011. Failure to comply

with this deadline will result in the summary granting of Defendant’s motion pursuant to

LRCiv. 7.2(I). 

DATED this 7th Day of February, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-00866-MHM Document 85 Filed 02/09/11 Page 2 of 2