Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00393/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00393-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

The Local Rules are available online at: www.azd.uscourts.gov

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eugenia Derden, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Maricopa County, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0393-PHX- SMM

ORDER

 Before the Court are Defendant Maricopa County’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Strike

(Dkt. 6) and Plaintiff Eugenia Derden’s (“Plaintiff”) Continuance Motion (Dkt. 7). 

A. Motion to Strike

On July 17, 2007, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss this case, arguing that Plaintiff

failed to effect service within the time limits set forth in Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure (“Federal Rules”). (Dkt. 4) In turn, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Quash Maricopa

County’s Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 5) As Defendant correctly argues, a Motion to Quash is

not a proper responsive motion format as delineated by Rule 12 of the Federal Rules and Rule

7.2 of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of

Arizona (“Local Rules”).1

 Therefore, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion to strike and

order Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss by Friday, August 24, 2007. 

Case 2:07-cv-00393-SMM Document 8 Filed 08/14/07 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 -

B. Warning to Plaintiff

Plaintiff is hereby warned that a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end the case. It is Plaintiff's obligation to timely

respond to all motions. The failure of Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

may, in the discretion of the Court, be deemed a consent to the granting of that Motion

without further notice, and judgment may be entered dismissing the Complaint and action

with prejudice pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i). See Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th

Cir. 1994) (per curiam). 

C. Motion to Continue Tort Complaint

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Continue Tort Complaint on July 31, 2007. (Dkt.7) The Court

will deny Plaintiff’s Continuance Motion since it is vague; specifically, Plaintiff fails to

identify which deadline she seeks to continue. Nonetheless, Plaintiff clearly requests a

Preliminary Hearing in this matter and the Court hereby takes notice that she is prepared for

a Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial Conference in this matter.

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Defendant’s Motion to Strike. (Dkt. 6) 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to strike Plaintiff’s

Motion to Quash Maricopa County’s Motion to Dismiss from the docket.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until 5:00 p.m. on Friday,

August 24, 2007, to file a response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Continuance Motion (Dkt. 7)

DATED this 13th day of August, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00393-SMM Document 8 Filed 08/14/07 Page 2 of 2