Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00067/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00067-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other 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

Ronald C. FISH, a law corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Thomas G. WATKINS, III, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 03-0067-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to File Surreply (Doc. No. 133) and

Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 134). Plaintiff filed a Declaration in Opposition to

Motion to Strike Surreply on May 19, 2006 (Doc. No. 135). 

I. MOTION TO STRIKE

Defendants move this Court to strike Plaintiff's Motion to File Surreply because the

font used by Plaintiff in the Memorandum is smaller than Local Rule 7.1(b)(1) of the Rules

of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona allows. Defendants

emphasize that Plaintiff was previously warned by this Court in an Order filed November 26,

2003 that "any document filed with this Court that is not in compliance with the Local Rules

of United States District Court for the District of Arizona will be stricken with no leave to

amend" (Doc. No. 60) and once again warned in an Order issued on February 21, 2006, that

"further noncompliance" would not be tolerated (Doc. No. 121). In response, Plaintiff filed

a Declaration in Opposition to Motion to Strike Surreply. In the Declaration, Cami J.

Case 2:03-cv-00067-SMM Document 137 Filed 11/13/06 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 -

Smurphat stated that she prepared the motion using the correct sized font and then scanned

it, saved it in a pdf file, and e-mailed it to the Court. However, the plain appearance of the

document, as well as a comparison of the font size used in Plaintiff's Declaration (Doc. No.

135) and the font size used in Plaintiff's Motion to File Surreply (Doc. No. 133), directly

contradicts Ms. Smurphat's statement. Despite repeated warnings, Plaintiff has failed to

comply with the Court's previous Orders and the Local Rules. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 134) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to File Surreply (Doc. No. 133)

will be stricken from the Court's docket without leave to amend.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall remove Plaintiff's Motion

to File Surreply (Doc. No. 133) from the Court's docket and return all documents associated

with this filing to counsel for Plaintiff. 

DATED this 9th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-00067-SMM Document 137 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 2