Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00322/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00322-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

Concrete Management Corporation, a

Colorado Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Double AA Builders of California, Inc., a

California corporation; Double AA

Builders, Ltd., an Arizona corporation,

Jointly and Severally,

Defendants. __________________________________

Double AA Builders of California, Inc.,a

California corporation,

 Counterclaimant,

vs.

Concrete Management Corporation, a

Colorado Corporation.

 Counterdefendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0322-PHX-LOA

ORDER

After review of the parties’s briefings on Defendant AA’s pending Motion for

Summary Judgement and Plaintiff CMS’ Response failing to fully address or mention the

applicability of potentially important legal issues,

Case 2:08-cv-00322-LOA Document 32 Filed 12/05/08 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 -

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff CMS shall file a Supplemental Response, not

exceeding ten pages, on or before Wednesday, December 10, 2008, with citation to relevant

statutes and case law:

1. Whether Plaintiff CMS agrees or disagrees with the following statement of

law, cited in Defendant AA’s Motion for Summary Judgment:

[A] federal court sitting in diversity must apply the forum state’s choice of law

rules. Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764, 772 n 4 (9th Cir. 2002). Arizona

choice of law rules therefore apply to determine the applicability of the

Subcontract’s choice of law provision to the issue presented in this motion.

(docket # 29 at 3) If Plaintiff CMS disagrees with this statement of law, it shall set forth why

with citation to relevant federal case law.

2. If Arizona’s choice of law provisions govern this action, why doesn’t

Arizona case law and/or Arizona Revised Statute (“A.R.S.”) § 32-1153 preclude recovery

of some or all of Plaintiff CMS’ claims. Id. at 7, n. 3.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant AA shall file its Reply to

Plaintiff CMS Response and Supplemental Response on or before 10 business days after

Plaintiff CMS files its Supplemental Response.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall “use proper capitalization”

in all future captions as mandated by LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) and Plaintiff’s counsel shall file future

pleadings, briefings, and documents in “font size no smaller than 13 point.” LRCiv 7.1(b)(1),

effective December 1, 2008.

DATED this 5th day of December, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00322-LOA Document 32 Filed 12/05/08 Page 2 of 2