Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08023/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08023-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

 In drafting the amended complaint, the Court expects the plaintiffs to

consider any applicable defenses previously raised by the defendants, and, in

addition, to consider to what extent, if any, the Noerr-Pennington immunity

doctrine applies to their federal and state claims.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wind River Resources, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Herb Guenther, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-8023-PCT-PGR 

 

 ORDER

This action was transferred to this Court from the District of Nevada. A

review of the Nevada docket establishes that the plaintiff wishes to both withdraw

certain claims made in the current complaint and to add a new claim. In the

interests of judicial economy, the Court finds that the plaintiffs should file an

amended complaint so that the parties and the Court know exactly what issues

are pending in this action. The Court will permit the defendants to test the

propriety of the amended complaint through motions to dismiss. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall file and serve an amended

complaint no later than April 27, 2009.

1

Case 3:09-cv-08023-PGR Document 83 Filed 03/31/09 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

2

 The Court notes that defendant Frisby’s motion to dismiss was filed

prematurely inasmuch as it was filed by substituted counsel Jon D. Schneider

prior to Mr. Schneider being permitted by the Court to be substituted as counsel

for defendant Frisby. See LRCiv 83.3.

- 2 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants shall file their answers or

any motions to dismiss no later than thirty (30) days after being served with the

amended complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Bob Frisby’s Motion to Dismiss

(doc. #82) is denied without prejudice to being re-filed after the filing and service

of the amended complaint.2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Substitution of Attorneys for

Defendant Bob Frisby (doc. #80), construed as an application for substitution of

counsel pursuant to LRCiv 83.3(b), is granted and that Jon D. Schneider, Esq. of

the law firm of Schneider & Onofry, P.C. is substituted as counsel for defendant

Bob Frisby in place of Robert P. Molina, Esq. of the law firm of Pyatt Silvestri &

Hanlon.

DATED this 31st day of March, 2009.

Case 3:09-cv-08023-PGR Document 83 Filed 03/31/09 Page 2 of 2