Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00934/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00934-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James M. Mitchell,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Silvia A. Mitchell,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-934-PHX-SMM

ORDER

NOTICE--WARNING TO PLAINTIFF

THIS NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO YOU BY THE COURT1

The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 4] seeks to have two of your claims

dismissed. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

will, if granted, dispose of those two claims. Because the Defendants' Motion was filed on

June 6, 2006, your response was due on June 25, 2007.

Plaintiff is advised of the following specific provisions of LRCiv 7.2 of the Rules of

Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona:

Subparagraph (e) 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.

Case 2:07-cv-00934-SMM Document 12 Filed 07/09/07 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 -

Subparagraph (i) 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 motions. The failure of Plaintiff to

respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 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 claims with prejudice pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i). See Brydges v. Lewis, 18

F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until 5:00 p.m. Friday,

July 20, 2007, to file a response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file any reply by 5:00 p.m.

Friday, August 3, 2007.

DATED this 9th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00934-SMM Document 12 Filed 07/09/07 Page 2 of 2