Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01304/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01304-2/pdf.json

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

Alan Singer, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Harvey Duro, Sr. et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1304-PHX-DGC

ORDER

In its April 22, 2009 order, the Court stated that it would “entertain a motion for

monetary sanctions by Plaintiff against Mr. Zundel personally for the time Plaintiff invested

in drafting the motion for summary judgment that must now be re-drafted after additional

discovery.” Dkt. #70. Plaintiff has filed a motion for monetary sanctions, but instead

requests monetary sanctions for the time Plaintiff will have to invest in drafting a subsequent

motion for summary judgment now that the admissions have been withdrawn. Dkt. #72.

Because the motion does not address the sanctions allowed by the Court – for the cost of

drafting the previous summary judgment motion – the Court will deny the motion for

sanctions without prejudice. Plaintiff may re-file the motion and seek sanctions for time

invested in drafting his first motion for summary judgment after the Court has ruled on the

forthcoming motions for summary judgment. 

Case 2:08-cv-01304-DGC Document 77 Filed 06/19/09 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 -

Plaintiff has also filed a request for certification of appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b),

asking the Court to certify for appeal the Court’s decision to allow Defendants to withdraw

admissions. Dkt. #73; see Dkt. #70. Section 1292(b) states that a district court may

designate an otherwise unappealable civil action as subject to appeal if “the order involves

a question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion” and “an

immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the

litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The Court will deny Plaintiff’s request. The Court had

discretion to permit the withdrawal of admissions, provided the Court addressed the twopronged test of Rule 36(b). See Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 625 (9th Cir. 2007);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). Plaintiff does not dispute that the Court addressed both factors. See

Dkt. #70. Nor will immediate appeal materially advance the ultimate termination of this

litigation.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (Dkt. #72) is denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff may re-file a motion for sanctions seeking the expense incurred in

preparing the first motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #51) after the Court has

ruled on the forthcoming motions for summary judgment. 

2. Plaintiff’s request for certification of appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Dkt.

#73) is denied. 

DATED this 19th day of June, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01304-DGC Document 77 Filed 06/19/09 Page 2 of 2