Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00761/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00761-7/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Western Alliance Bank, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:14-cv-0761 JWS

)

vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION

)

Richard Jefferson, ) [Re: Motion at docket 182]

)

Defendant. )

)

)

Richard Jefferson, )

)

Counter-claimant, )

)

vs. )

)

Western Alliance Bank, )

)

Counter-defendant. )

)

)

Richard Jefferson, )

)

Third-party plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

Theodore Kritza & Michelle Lee )

Kritza, )

)

Third-party defendants. )

)

-1-

Case 2:14-cv-00761-JWS Document 227 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 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

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 182 defendant, counter-claimant, and third-party plaintiff Richard

Jefferson (“Jefferson”) moves to strike the filing of plaintiff and counter-defendant

Western Alliance Bank (“Alliance”) at docket 177. Alliance opposes at docket 189. 

Jefferson replies at docket 200. Oral argument was not requested and would not assist

the court. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Local Rule of Civil Procedure (“Local Rule”) 7.2(m) governs motions to strike. It

provides in pertinent part that a motion to strike may be filed “if it seeks to strike any

part of a filing or submission on the ground that it is prohibited (or not authorized) by a

statute, rule, or court order.”1 The decision to grant or deny a motion to strike is within

the court’s discretion.2

III. DISCUSSION

Alliance filed a motion for summary judgment3 supported by a fourteen-page,

sixty-paragraph separate statement of facts (“SOF”).4 Jefferson filed an opposition to

the motion5 supported by a 140-page document that contains his controverting

statement of facts (“CSOF”) and additional statement of facts (“ASOF”).6 Alliance then

filed a reply7 and a separate response to Jefferson’s CSOF and ASOF.8 Alliance’s

1LRCiv 7.2(m)(1).

2Spencer v. Stapler, No. 04-1532 PHX SMM, 2006 WL 2052704, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 21,

2006).

3Doc. 131.

4Doc. 134.

5Doc. 163.

6Doc. 166.

7Doc. 174.

8Doc. 177.

-2-

Case 2:14-cv-00761-JWS Document 227 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 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

separate response is the subject of Jefferson’s present motion to strike. In it, Alliance

(1) objects to facts set out in Jefferson’s ASOF as being “repetitive;” (2) responds to

facts set out in Jefferson’s ASOF that it concedes are not repetitive; and (3) responds to

Jefferson’s evidentiary objections to its own SOF.9 

Jefferson argues that Alliance’s response is unauthorized by the Local Rules. 

He is correct. If the moving party wishes to respond to a non-moving party’s statement

of facts or evidentiary objections, it may do so in its reply memorandum—not in a

separate responsive memorandum.

10 Because Alliance’s separate memorandum

responds to Jefferson’s ASOF and the evidentiary objections in Jefferson’s CSOF, it is

unauthorized and Jefferson’s motion to strike will be granted.

The court notes that Jefferson’s filing at docket 166 also violates the Local

Rules. Local Rule 7.2 permits a non-moving party to include in its controverting

statement of facts objections to the moving party’s statement of facts, but such

objections “must be stated summarily without argument.”11 Argument belongs in the

non-moving party’s opposition brief, within the page limit.12 Jefferson’s 103-page CSOF

flaunts this rule; it is filled with objections accompanied by explanation and argument. 

Many of Jefferson’s objections span multiple pages.13 Jefferson’s arguments in support

of his evidentiary objections are improper and will not be considered by the court.

9Doc. 177.

10See B2B CFO Partners, LLC v. Kaufman, 856 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1086-87 (D. Ariz.

2012) (“The Local Rules do not contemplate . . . filing a separate response to the non-moving

party’s statement of facts. ”); LRCiv 7.2(m)(2) (“Any response to an objection must be included

in the responding party’s reply memorandum for the underlying motion and may not be

presented in a separate responsive memorandum.”).

11LRCiv 7.2(m)(2).

12Marceau v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 618 F. Supp. 2d 1127, 1141 (D. Ariz. 2009).

13See, e.g., Doc. 166. at 38-41, 71-75.

-3-

Case 2:14-cv-00761-JWS Document 227 Filed 10/07/15 Page 3 of 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

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the preceding discussion, Jefferson’s motion to strike at docket 182 is

GRANTED; Alliance’s filing at docket 177 is hereby stricken. Further, the court will

consider or disregard Jefferson’s filing at docket 166 consistent with the authority

discussed above.

DATED this 7th day of October, 2015.

 /s/ 

JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-

Case 2:14-cv-00761-JWS Document 227 Filed 10/07/15 Page 4 of 4