Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-02352/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-02352-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

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

Marc Delany, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 04-2352 PCT VAM

)

U.S. Forest Service, et al., ) O R D E R

)

 Defendants. )

On July 6, 2006, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing

that plaintiff failed to pay costs of $203.30 taxed in a related

case and, therefore, this case should be dismissed. (Docs. 30,

31). Plaintiff responded by saying he could find no deadline for

paying the costs taxed in the related case. (Doc. 32). 

Subsequently, plaintiff filed an "Answer to Defendants' Reply to

Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Dismiss." (Doc. 37). Attached

to the Answer was a copy of a Postal Money Order in the amount of

$204.00 made payable to the U.S. Treasury. The amount of the

costs will be paid to the United States by the Clerk's Office. 

Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss is moot.

On July 14, 2006, plaintiff filed a "Motion-Revised Request

for Court Supervised Mediation." (Doc. 33). Defendants filed an

opposition pointing out that they wish to pursue the matter via

the lawsuit, not mediation. (Doc. 35). The defendants believe a

Case 3:04-cv-02352-MHB Document 52 Filed 10/25/06 Page 1 of 7
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

Plaintiff is advised that a party may combine the opposition

to a motion for summary judgment and cross motion for summary

judgment into one document and use the same statement of facts to

support both. This conserves times and expense for the parties and

2

resolution through mediation is not possible. Therefore, the

Court will deny the Motion for a Court Supervised Mediation.

On October 2, 2006, plaintiff filed a "Memorandum in Support

of Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment." (Doc. 41). 

Attached to the Memorandum are voluminous records listed as

exhibits. On October 10, 2006, plaintiff filed a "Response to

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment." (Doc. 47). Attached to

the Response are four declarations: two by plaintiff and two by

Barbara Villere. It also appears that there are numerous exhibits

referenced in the Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Defendant moved to strike these documents. (Docs. 43, 50).

This is a review of the Administrative Record under the

Administrative Procedures Act. The Administrative Record has been

compiled and the Court, plaintiff and defendants have a copy of

the Administrative Record. The only thing the Court can reference

in making its decision is the Administrative Record. When

defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment, their

Statement of Facts references the Administrative Record. This is

the proper way to file a motion for summary judgment or opposition

to a motion for summary judgment in an Administrative Procedures

Act case - by only citing to the Administrative Record.

Plaintiff's Response to defendants' Motion for Summary

Judgment and plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment exceed

the page limit allowed on LRCiv 7.2(e).1

 That is, plaintiff may

Case 3:04-cv-02352-MHB Document 52 Filed 10/25/06 Page 2 of 7
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

the Court. However, if plaintiff chooses to combine his opposition

and cross motion, the memorandum in support may not exceed 17

pages.

2

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962 (9th Cir. 1998).

3

file seventeen (17) pages in response to a motion for summary

judgment or in support of a motion for summary judgment. Both of

the filings submitted by plaintiff are 29 pages in length. They

are confusing, rambling and repetitive. The Response to

defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. 47 and 48) and

plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. 41 and 42)

will be stricken from the record. These documents are too lengthy

and are confusing. Plaintiff will be required to redo his

opposition to defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and, if he

chooses to file one, his Cross Motion for Summary Judgment keeping

the memorandum in support to no more than 17-pages. In addition,

plaintiff may not cite to attachments or add exhibits to his

opposition to defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross

Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff is only allowed to cite to

the Administrative Record in support of his Motion for Summary

Judgment and opposition to defendants' Motion for Summary

Judgment. If plaintiff files any pages over 17 and his statement

of facts references anything other than the Administrative Record,

they will be stricken and the Court will decide defendants' Motion

for Summary Judgment without benefit of plaintiff's input.

NOTICE--WARNING TO PLAINTIFF

THIS NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO YOU BY THE COURT2

The defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment seeks to have

Case 3:04-cv-02352-MHB Document 52 Filed 10/25/06 Page 3 of 7
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 4

your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your

case.

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a

motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be

granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact--that is,

if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the

result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. 

When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment

that is properly supported by the Administrative Record, you

cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must

set out specific facts supported by the Administrative Record that

contradict the facts shown in the defendants' statement of facts

and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact precluding

summary judgment. If you do not file an opposition to the summary

judgment, if appropriate, the Court may rule against you. If

summary judgment is granted, your case will be ended and judgment

entered for defendants.

LRCiv 56.1 of the Rules of Practice of the United States

District Court for the District of Arizona also requires, in

addition, that you include as a part of your opposition to a 

motion for summary judgment a separate statement of facts in

opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 

(a) Any party filing a motion for summary judgment shall

set forth separately from the memorandum of law, and in

full, the specific facts on which that party relies in

support of the motion. The specific facts shall be set

forth in serial fashion and not in narrative form. As to

Case 3:04-cv-02352-MHB Document 52 Filed 10/25/06 Page 4 of 7
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

3

Because this is a review of the Administrative Record,

plaintiff may only cite to the Administrative Record and may not

attach exhibits, affidavits, etc.

5

each fact, the statement shall refer to a specific

portion of the record where the fact may be found (i.e.,

affidavit, deposition, etc.).3

 Any party opposing a

motion for summary judgment must comply with the

foregoing in setting forth the specific facts, which the

opposing party asserts, including those facts which

establish a genuine issue of material fact precluding

summary judgment in favor of the moving party. In the

alternative, the movant and the party opposing the motion

shall jointly file a stipulation signed by the parties

setting forth a statement of the stipulated facts if the

parties agree there is no genuine issue of any material

fact. As to any stipulated facts, the parties so

stipulating may state 

that their stipulations are entered into only for the

purposes of the motion for summary judgment and are not

intended to be otherwise binding.

Additional provisions of LRCiv 7.2, Rules of Practice of the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona are as

follows:

Subparagraph (e) of that Rule provides:

Unless otherwise permitted by the Court, a motion

including its supporting memorandum, and the response

including its supporting memorandum, each shall not

exceed seventeen (17) pages, exclusive of attachments and

any required statement of facts. Unless otherwise

permitted by the Court, a reply including its supporting

memorandum shall not exceed eleven (11) pages, exclusive

of attachments.

Subparagraph (i) of LRCiv 7.2 provides:

If a motion does not conform in all substantial respects

with the requirements of this Local Rule, or if the

opposing party does not serve and file the required

answering memoranda, or if counsel for any party fails to

appear at the time and place assigned for oral argument,

such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial

or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of

the motion summarily.

It is plaintiff's obligation to timely respond to all

Case 3:04-cv-02352-MHB Document 52 Filed 10/25/06 Page 5 of 7
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 6

motions. The failure of plaintiff to respond to defendants'

Motion for Summary Judgment 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 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying as moot the Government's

Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 30). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall

disburse the taxed costs of $203.30 made payable to the U.S.

Treasury, c/o U.S. Attorney's Office, Attention: AUSA Richard

Patrick, Two Renaissance Square, 40 N. Central, Suite 1200,

Phoenix, AZ 85004-4408.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying plaintiff's "Motion-Revised

Request for Court Supervised Mediation." (Doc. 33).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting defendants' Motion to Strike 

plaintiff's Response to defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 

(Doc. 50). Plaintiff's Response to defendants' Motion for Summary

Judgment and attachments are stricken. (Docs. 47 and 48).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting defendants' Motion to Strike

plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 43). 

Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and all exhibits and

attachments will be stricken. (Docs. 41 and 42).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file a new

opposition to defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and, if

plaintiff chooses, a cross motion for summary judgment no later

than November 17, 2006. The new opposition and, if plaintiff

Case 3:04-cv-02352-MHB Document 52 Filed 10/25/06 Page 6 of 7
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

chooses, cross motion for summary judgment shall be no longer than

17 pages for the memorandum of points and authorities. The

statement of facts or opposing statement of facts will be separate

documents and may only cite to the Administrative Record. If

plaintiff files a longer memorandum or cites to items that are not

part of the Administrative Record, the new cross motion and

opposition to defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be

stricken.

DATED this 24th day of October, 2006.

Case 3:04-cv-02352-MHB Document 52 Filed 10/25/06 Page 7 of 7