Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02267/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02267-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

Jesus Lopez Sauceda and Maria Lopez

Bojorquez, husband and wife; Maria

Soledad Alaniz Gonzalez, a single

woman, and Angel Alaniz Gonzalez, a

single man, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

The United States of America, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-2267-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiffs suffered severe injuries when the vehicle they were riding in rolled over near

San Luis, Arizona on January 26, 2005. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the United States

alleging that federal border patrol agents caused the accident. The complaint alleges

negligence and civil rights claims. Dkt. #1.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to strike Defendant’s notice of non-parties at fault.

Dkt. #59. Defendant has filed a response. Dkt. #73. Plaintiffs have not filed a reply, and

the time for doing so has expired. See LRCiv 7.2(d). For reasons that follow, the Court will

deny the motion.

Defendant’s notice identifies twenty-three passengers in the vehicle with Plaintiffs and

asserts that these individuals are at fault for Plaintiffs’ injuries because they “exacerbated the

hazardous condition of the vehicle, particularly the uneven and dangerous weight distribution

Case 2:07-cv-02267-DGC Document 78 Filed 08/03/09 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 -

caused by the improper loading of twenty-seven persons into the vehicle[.]” Dkt. #21 at 2-4.

Plaintiffs contend that the notice is improper because passengers owe no legal duty to fellow

passengers. Dkt. #59 at 3. Plaintiffs move to strike the notice pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1.

As Defendant correctly notes in its response (Dkt. #73 at 3), Rule 12(f) applies to

matters asserted in a pleading, and a notice of non-parties at fault is not a pleading under the

rules of civil procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(1)-(7). Moreover, even if Plaintiffs’ motion

to strike was proper under Rule 12(f), the motion is untimely. Rule 12(f) motions must be

made within twenty days after being served with a pleading. Fed. R. Civ. 12(f)(2).

Defendant served Plaintiffs with the notice on August 18, 2008. See Dkt. #21 at 5. Plaintiffs

filed their motion to strike on June 19, 2009, more than nine months late. See Dkt. 59.

Finally, Plaintiffs’ motion essentially seeks a dispositive legal ruling that the passengers in

the vehicle owed no duty of care to Plaintiffs, but a “motion to strike should not be used as

a vehicle to determine disputed and substantial questions of law[.]” Bristol-Myers Squibb

Co. v. IVAX Corp., 77 F. Supp. 2d 606, 619 (D.N.J. 2000).

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to strike (Dkt. #59) is denied. 

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-02267-DGC Document 78 Filed 08/03/09 Page 2 of 2