Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01807/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01807-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment (Insurance)

---

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

Quanta Indemnity Company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

North American Specialty Insurance

Company; General Fidelity Insurance

Company; Amberwood Development Inc.;

Amberwood Homes LLC; Roll Tide LLP;

Summerset Marketing Enterprises Inc.;

Winston Casas LLC, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1807-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On August 23, 2013, Motions for Summary Judgment were filed in this case. After

multiple extensions of time, Responses were filed on November 22, 2013. On November 27,

2013, some parties moved to strike another party’s responsive statement of facts. Those

parties then sought expedited consideration of the motion to strike and an extension of time

to file the replies until after the Court rules on the motion to strike. 

Local Rule Civil 7.2(m) states: “An objection to (and any argument regarding) the

admissibility of evidence offered in support of or opposition to a motion must be presented

in the objecting party’s responsive or reply memorandum and not in a separate motion to

strike... .” This rule was designed, in part, to prevent exactly what the parties in this case

seek to accomplish: delaying the briefing of the summary judgment motions by tangential

motions to strike. Accordingly, the Court will grant the request for expedited consideration,

Case 2:11-cv-01807-JAT Document 181 Filed 12/03/13 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 -

deny the motion to strike because it is not permitted by Local Rule Civil 7.2(m) and deny the

request for an extension of time to file the replies.

The parties shall not move for reconsideration of this order arguing that this particular

iteration of a motion to strike is somehow different than what is forbidden by the civil local

rules. The Court finds that even though this motion to strike goes beyond objecting to the

evidence, it nonetheless fall within the prohibition of the civil local rules. Accordingly, if

the parties seek to make these (or any other) objections to the responsive statement of facts,

any such objections must be made in the replies.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for expedited consideration (Doc. 178) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to strike (Doc. 177) is denied without

prejudice to raising the same arguments in the replies.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the motion for extension of time to file replies

(Doc. 179) is denied.

DATED this 3rd day of December, 2013.

Case 2:11-cv-01807-JAT Document 181 Filed 12/03/13 Page 2 of 2