Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-00251/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-00251-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 31:3731 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

Bartlett Elliott, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bank of America, N.A., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-0251-PCT-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Disposition (Dkt. 30), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 32).

I. BACKGROUND

On January 25, 2010, pro se Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant concerning

“United States Government ‘STIMULUS’ check(s) sent to Bartlett and Delora F. Elliott.”

(Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff attempted to charge Defendant with theft by false pretense, embezzlement,

and fraud, and sought damages in the amount of $1,000,000. (Id.) Defendant denied

Plaintiff’s allegations. (Dkt. 7.)

On July 19, 2010, the Court continued the Rule 16 conference, and ordered Plaintiff

to show cause as to (1) why Plaintiff should not be sanctioned for failing to appear at the

conference, and (2) why Plaintiff failed to participate in the preparation of the case

management plan. (Dkt. 14.) At the show-cause hearing on August 23, 2010, the Court

Case 3:10-cv-00251-JAT Document 33 Filed 07/26/11 Page 1 of 4
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 -

found that Plaintiff failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, and ordered

Defendant to submit an application for reasonable attorney’s fees. (Dkt. 18.) The Court

ordered that any further defaults by Plaintiff would result in the Court’s dismissal of this

action. (Id.)

On March 4, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 23.)

When Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion in a timely manner, Defendant filed a Motion

for Summary Disposition 60 days later. (Dkt. 25.) The Court granted Defendant’s Motion

for Summary Judgment, finding that there was no factual or legal basis to support Plaintiff’s

claims, and dismissed this action with prejudice. (Dkt. 26.) Because the Court analyzed the

Motion for Summary Judgment on its merits, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Disposition as moot. (Id.) No hearing was set or conducted in connection with

Defendant’s motions.

II. ANALYSIS

For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s pending motions.

A. Motion to Strike

In his one-page Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition,

Plaintiff states that he was unable to attend the Court’s hearing, and requests a hearing so that

“due process can be fulfilled.” (Dkt. 30.) As noted above, the Court did not conduct a

hearing in connection with its ruling on the uncontested Motion for Summary Judgment; it

is unclear what hearing Plaintiff refers to in his motion. Additionally, Plaintiff does not

explain how his failure to attend a hearing justified his failure to file a response to either

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Disposition. Regardless, this action has been dismissed with prejudice, and the Court will

not conduct a hearing in order to re-open this case.

With respect to the caption of Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff does not cite any basis for

striking Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition, and Plaintiff fails to support his

request with any analysis. Further, the Court denied the Motion for Summary Disposition

as moot. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to strike the motion must also be moot. If, instead,

Case 3:10-cv-00251-JAT Document 33 Filed 07/26/11 Page 2 of 4
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 -

Plaintiff intended to request the Court strike Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

from the record, Plaintiff’s request is untimely. The motion has been granted, and the time

to appeal the Court’s order dismissing this action with prejudice elapsed before Plaintiff filed

his motion.

Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff requests the Court reconsider (inexplicably) its

denial of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition, or (presumably) its grant of

summary judgment, Plaintiff’s request is also untimely. The Local Rules require motions for

reconsideration to be filed no later than 14 days after the filing of the challenged order. See

Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (“LRCiv”) 7.2(g)(2).

Plaintiff’s motion was filed more than 30 days after the Court granted summary judgment

in favor of Defendant, and against Plaintiff. (Dkt. 26 & 27.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion

is untimely.

For the reasons set forth above, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition.

B. Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff captioned his second one-page motion as a Response to Defendant’s Motion

for Summary Disposition and a Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. 32.) To the extent that

Plaintiff is attempting to file a response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition,

that response is untimely and moot. The Court, as noted above, denied Defendant’s Motion

for Summary Disposition as moot on May 20, 2011.

With respect to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff does not identify the

particular order that Plaintiff requests the Court reconsider, nor does Plaintiff provide any

analysis as to why the Court should reconsider a prior order. The Local Rules require a party

to show “manifest error,” or “new facts or legal authority” that could not have been brought

to the Court’s attention earlier. LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Plaintiff has not pointed out any matters

that Plaintiff believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the Court, or any new matters.

Instead, Plaintiff implicitly asks the Court to overlook Plaintiff’s failure to respond to

Defendant’s motions. The Court previously warned Plaintiff that any further defaults by

Case 3:10-cv-00251-JAT Document 33 Filed 07/26/11 Page 3 of 4
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 -

Plaintiff would result in the Court’s dismissal of this action. (Dkt. 18.) Plaintiff did not heed

the Court’s warning, and the Court finds no reason to re-open this action.

Regardless of the dearth of analysis, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsider is untimely,

because the motion was not filed within 14 days of any order. See LRCiv 7.2(g)(2). Plaintiff

requests “the Court’s mercy” and states that Defendant is attempting to deny Plaintiff’s right

to due process. However, Plaintiff failed to file a response, timely or otherwise, to

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Further, Plaintiff did not file a response to

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition, which was filed 60 days after the filing of the

summary judgment motion. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 30) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 32)

is DENIED.

DATED this 25th day of July, 2011.

Case 3:10-cv-00251-JAT Document 33 Filed 07/26/11 Page 4 of 4