Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00110/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00110-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

City of Phoenix, 

Plaintiff/Counter-defendant, 

vs.

Leo A. Daly Company, 

Defendant/Counterclaimant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-110-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff/Counter-defendant's motion to dismiss the

Counterclaim (Doc. #28) and Defendant/Counterclaimant's Motion to convert the motion to

dismiss to a motion for summary judgment and to permit discovery pursuant to Rule 56(f)

(Doc. #36). A stipulation for extension of time to reply in support of the motion to dismiss

(Doc. #39) is pending (this stipulation does not mention the request for relief under Rule

56(f)).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 states that in considering motions to dismiss for

failure to state a claim (12(b)(6)) the Court should not consider evidence outside the

pleadings. Nonetheless, in filing a 12(b)(6) motion, Plaintiff/Counter-defendant included

evidence. As a result of this requirement in the rule, Defendant/Counterclaimant suggests

that this Court, if it intends to consider the evidence, should convert the motion to one under

Rule 56.

Case 2:07-cv-00110-JAT Document 42 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 3
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 -

Notably, when the complaint was filed, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The

parties then stipulated that Defendant should not have to answer the count not subject to the

motion to dismiss until the Court ruled on the motion to dismiss. The Court denied this

stipulation. Defendant filed a second stipulation saying, "Both parties believe that an

extension of time is necessary to obviate the need for filing an answer that would trigger

procedural events, disclosure and discovery that may be premature until the resolution of

Daly's pending Motion to Dismiss." Doc. # 9 at 2. The Court granted this second stipulation

despite the Court's reservations that such methodology was not the most expeditious way to

proceed with the case. Doc. #11 at 1-2. After the Court ruled on the motion to dismiss,

Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim. Plaintiff/Counterdefendant then moved to

dismiss the counterclaim. In response to the motion to dismiss, Defendant/Counterclaimant

now seeks Rule 56(f) relief to allow discovery to proceed before it should be called to

respond to the motion to dismiss. Distressingly, the fact that discovery has not been ongoing

since January 22, 2007, as the Court wanted, is Defendant/Counterclaimants own doing by

its vigorous assertions that it should not start discovery until the Court ruled on the first

motion to dismiss. While, typically, the Court, at this early stage of the case, must permit

discovery before converting a motion to one under Rule 56, the Court finds

Defendant/Counterclaimant's own conduct, for the specific purpose of "obviat[ating] the need

for filing an answer that would trigger procedural events, disclosure and discovery that may

be premature until the resolution of Daly's pending Motion to Dismiss," has caused

Defendant/Counterclaim to not have been able to take discovery. Had

Defendant/Counterclaimant accepted the Court's original ruling, discovery would have been

on-going since January 22, 2007. Therefore, the Court will not grant relief under Rule 56(f).

However, the Court still is faced with a situation where, inconsistent with the

limitations of Rule 12(b)(6), Plaintiff/Counter-defendant, in its motion to dismiss, attached

evidence. Thus, Defendant/Counterclaimant is technically correct that the Court either must

convert the motion to a summary judgment motion or not consider the evidence. Because

Case 2:07-cv-00110-JAT Document 42 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 3
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

1

 In a case filed January 11, 2007, it appears that it will be mid-October 2007 before

the Court resolves the motions to dismiss.

- 3 -

the Court will not grant Rule 56(f) relief, the Court will not convert the motion to one under

Rule 56. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim (Doc. #28) is stricken.

The Response (Doc. #37) is also stricken. The Request for Rule 56(f) (Doc. #36) is denied

as moot. The Stipulation to Extend Time to file reply (Doc. #39) is denied as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by August 15, 2007, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

shall either answer the counterclaim, or file a motion that complies with the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. If a motion is filed, a response is due by September 5, 2007. A reply is

due by September 12, 2007. Due to the age of this case,1

 and the parties' history of seeking

extensions, the parties are advised that no extensions of these deadlines will be granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting oral argument on the to-be-filed motion to

dismiss for Monday, October 15, 2007 at 11:15 a.m. If an answer/reply to counterclaim is

filed, the oral argument will be vacated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to assist the court reporter, the parties shall

prepare and bring to oral argument a Table of Authorities, in alphabetical order, which

includes all of the authorities on which the parties will rely at oral argument; the Table of

Authorities shall not exceed the scope of the parties' pleadings.

DATED this 2nd day of August, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00110-JAT Document 42 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 3