Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00657/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00657-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Carl West, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

City of Mesa, et al., 

 Defendants.

NO. CV 12-0657 PHX-DGC

(CONSOLIDATED) 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion to file a consolidated complaint. Doc. 27. The Court 

addressed the motion with the parties at a status conference on February 17, 2015. The 

Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part. The Court will also adjust the 

litigation schedule as discussed at the conference. 

I. Motion to File Consolidated Complaint. 

 Although these consolidated cases have been pending for some time and have seen 

several complaints and amended complaints, a portion of the case has returned recently 

from the Ninth Circuit with directions to permit a revised complaint. In addition, now 

that the cases have been consolidated, the Court concludes that a single complaint should 

be filed to clarify the issues pending in the case. The Court advises the parties, however, 

that it does not intend to permit additional amendments. The deadline for amending the 

complaint in CV-14-254 passed on December 1, 2014, and CV-12-0657 has been 

pending for more than two years. 

Case 2:12-cv-00657-DGC Document 29 Filed 02/18/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

 Count 6 asserts claims for abuse of process against all Defendants other than Van 

Norman and Smith. Doc. 27-2 at 18. The Court previously granted judgment on the 

pleadings with respect to the abuse of process claims against Defendants Mesa and 

Jacobs. Doc. 21 at 3-4. The Court also dismissed the abuse of process claim against the 

United States with prejudice. Id. at 7. The remaining defendants in this count, Gordwin 

and his supervisor Truchon, are in the same position. As Judge Sedwick concluded and 

the Ninth Circuit affirmed, the abuse of process claim accrued in 2003 and is barred by 

the statute of limitations. Doc. 13 at 5 & n. 23; CV-14-254, Doc. 87, Ex. 1. The Court 

will therefore not grant leave to assert Count 6.1

 Counts 7 and 8 assert claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation against 

Defendants Gordwin and Jacobs. Doc. 27-1 at 20-21. Judge Sedwick dismissed these 

claims against Jacobs as time-barred and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Doc. 13 at 5 & 

n. 23; CV-14-254, Doc. 87, Ex. 1. For this reason, the Court already ruled that the claims 

cannot be asserted against Jacobs in this action. Doc. 21 at 7. The same ruling applies to 

the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims against Gordwin. Judge Sedwick found 

that such claims accrued in 2003, the Ninth Circuit agreed, and the claims therefore are 

time-barred. Id. The Court will not grant leave to assert Counts 7 and 8. 

 Count 9 asserts a claim for negligent supervision against Truchon. Doc. 27-2 at 

21-22. The Court previously held, on the basis of the rulings by Judge Sedwick and the 

Ninth Circuit, that claims for negligent supervision arising out of the supervision of 

Gordwin are time-barred. Doc. 21 at 8. The Court will not grant leave to assert Count 9. 

 The consolidated complaint includes a section on punitive damages, but it is not 

labeled as a separate count. Doc. 27-2 at 23. The Court construes it as a request for a 

remedy and not as a separate count in the complaint. Defendants therefore need not 

address it in their motions to dismiss. 

 

1

 Plaintiff need not file a revised complaint. They should file the proposed consolidated complaint (Doc. 27-2). Count 6, and the other counts dismissed in this 

order, will remain in the consolidated complaint for purposes of appeal, but will not be at issue in this case. 

Case 2:12-cv-00657-DGC Document 29 Filed 02/18/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

II. Litigation Schedule.

 As discussed with the parties on February 17, 2015, the Court revises the litigation 

schedule as follows: 

 a. Defendants shall file their motion to dismiss by March 6, 2015. Plaintiff 

shall file his response by March 16, 2015. Defendants shall reply by 

March 23, 2015. 

 b. The fact discovery deadline will be extended to April 17, 2015. 

 c. Plaintiff shall provide full and complete expert disclosures as required by 

Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than 

April 10, 2015. 

 d. Defendants shall provide full and complete expert disclosures as required 

by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later 

than May 8, 2015. 

 e. Rebuttal expert disclosures, if any, shall be made no later than May 29, 

2015. Rebuttal experts shall be limited to responding to opinions stated by 

initial experts. 

 f. Expert depositions shall be completed no later than June 26, 2015. 

 g. The parties shall engage in good faith settlement talks by April 1, 2015. 

 h. Dispositive motions shall be filed by July 10, 2015. 

 All other terms of the Scheduling Order (CV-14-254, Doc. 44) remain in effect 

with the exception of the Trial Scheduling Conference. The Court will set the trial date at 

the final pretrial conference. 

The parties are advised that the Court will not be inclined to grant further 

extensions of this schedule, and should plan their discovery activities accordingly. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a consolidated complaint (Doc. 27) is 

granted in part and denied in part as set forth above. 

 

Case 2:12-cv-00657-DGC Document 29 Filed 02/18/15 Page 3 of 4
- 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. The litigation schedule is revised as set forth above. 

 Dated this 18th day of February, 2015. 

Case 2:12-cv-00657-DGC Document 29 Filed 02/18/15 Page 4 of 4