Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02538/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02538-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

WO

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Anthony Camboni,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Mark Brnovich, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-02538-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Anthony Camboni’s Motion to Strike and 

Motion for a More Definite Statement. (Doc. 42). Having read Plaintiff’s filing, the Court 

understands it to be a response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Joinder in State Bar 

of Arizona’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 28), as well as a motion seeking independent 

relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e),(f). 

To the extent that Plaintiff’s filing serves as a response to Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss, (Doc. 28), it is stricken for failing to comply with the Local Rules of Civil 

Procedure. LRCiv. 7.2(e)(1) mandates that “[u]nless otherwise permitted by the Court,” 

Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ motion “may not exceed seventeen (17) pages.” 

Plaintiff has not sought leave from the Court to file a response in excess of the allotted 

page limit. Accordingly, the Court strikes Plaintiff’s filing to the extent that it serves as a 

response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

 Plaintiff’s filing also, however, appears to request independent relief pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. Plaintiff seeks to strike Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Joinder in 

Case 2:15-cv-02538-JAT Document 43 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

State Bar of Arizona’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 42 at 3), or—in the alternative—seeks a 

more definite statement. (Id. at 2). Both avenues of requested relief relate to the 

representation of certain Defendants by counsel Brian Bergin. Plaintiff asserts that Mr. 

Bergin “has produced no facts, evidence, or testimony” that would prove “Attorney 

Bergin represents the aforementioned Defendants.” (Id.). Thus, according to Plaintiff, 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be stricken. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff has cited 

nothing suggesting that Defendants cannot obtain counsel to represent them in this 

matter. Moreover, Plaintiff has cited nothing to suggest that counsel’s Notice of 

Appearance and Waiver of Service, (Doc. 6), filed on January 8, 2016, is somehow 

defective or insufficient. The Court notes that this is not the first time Plaintiff has 

attacked Mr. Bergin’s representation of Defendants. The Court’s March 17, 2016, Order 

rejected Plaintiff’s unsupported argument that Mr. Bergin had failed to present sufficient 

facts “concerning his representation” (Doc. 18 at 3 n.3). Plaintiff, here, again attacks Mr. 

Bergin’s representation without any evidence to support his position. The Court rejects 

Plaintiff’s conclusory argument, and absent some form of supporting evidence, the Court 

will not entertain this argument in the future. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and Motion for 

a More Definite Statement, (Doc. 42), are both denied. 

Plaintiff has asked the Court to set a hearing for oral argument on the 

aforementioned issues. (Doc. 42 at 3). The Court will deny this request. Plaintiff has 

submitted a memorandum discussing the law and facts in support of his position, and oral 

argument will not aide the Court’s decisional process. See e.g., Partridge v. Reich, 141 

F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998); Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific. Dev. 

Malibu Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991). Moreover, Plaintiff will be given the 

opportunity to re-file a compliant response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff has through the end of Friday, May 27, 2016, to file a response to 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Joinder in State Bar of Arizona’s Motion to Dismiss, 

(Doc. 28), that is compliant with this District’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court 

reminds Plaintiff that his response may not exceed seventeen (17) pages, LRCiv. 

Case 2:15-cv-02538-JAT Document 43 Filed 05/17/16 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

7.2(e)(1), and notifies Plaintiff that this will be the last opportunity to file a response to 

the pending Motion to Dismiss that complies with the Local Rules. Failure to “conform 

in all substantial respects with the requirements of this Local Rule” will be deemed to be 

consent to the “granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion 

summarily.” LRCiv. 7.2(i). 

 For the aforementioned reasons, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s filing, (Doc. 42), is STRICKEN, to the extent 

that the filing serves as a response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Joinder in State 

Bar of Arizona’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 28). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s filing, (Doc. 42), is DENIED, to 

the extent that it seeks a more definite statement or to strike Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. 

 Dated this 17th day of May, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-02538-JAT Document 43 Filed 05/17/16 Page 3 of 3