Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01113/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01113-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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 

James Gagan, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

James A Monroe, et al., 

Defendants.

 No. CV-13-01113-PHX-RCB

 O R D E R 

 Currently pending before the court is a motion for an extension of time in which to 

file an answer filed by defendant James Monroe pro se on October 9, 2013, prior to his 

retention of counsel. See Mot. (Doc. 18). Also pending is defendant Monroe’s motion 

for a stay of discovery filed by his attorney on November 11, 2013 (Doc. 29), in which 

six of the other defendants expressly join (Doc. 30). 

 Plaintiff Gagan has not responded to either motion, and the time to do so has 

passed.1

 More significantly for present purposes, however, is this court’s recent granting 

of defendant Monroe’s “Motion to Transfer; Motion to Suspend Deadlines and Motion 

for a Protective Order[.]” See Ord. (Doc. 33). 2

 The effect of granting that motion was, 

 

1 LRCiv 7.2(c) gives the opposing party 14 days after service in which to serve and file 

any responsive memorandum. Moreover, a party’s failure to file and serve the required answering 

memoranda “may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion[.]” See LRCiv 7.2(i). 

2

 Defendant Monroe’s pending motion for a stay includes a request for judicial notice, 

which his prior motion did not. That request does not pertain to the present action, however, but rather to 

the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed in the closely related action, Gagan v. 

Monroe, No. CV-99-01427-PHX-RCB (“Gagan I”). That request does not alter the fact that defendant 

Case 2:13-cv-01113-DJH Document 34 Filed 12/10/13 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

as defendant Monroe sought, to “suspend[] all deadlines, including the Answer 

deadline[];” and to preclude “any and all discovery, including depositions, until such time 

as the Motion to Dismiss [in Gagan I] is fully litigated.” See Mot. (Doc. 20) at 1:21-24. 

Because defendant Monroe has already received the relief which he is seeking in his 

motion for an extension of time to file an answer (Doc. 18) and in his motion for a stay 

(Doc. 29), those two motions are moot. Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that 

defendant Monroe’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer (Doc. 18) and his 

Motion for a Stay (Doc. 29) are DENIED.

3

 Dated this 9th day of December, 2013. 

 

 Monroe’s current motion for a stay is moot. 

3

 To the extent necessary, the court will address defendant Monroe’s nearly identical 

motion for a stay filed in Gagan I, in conjunction with his motion to dismiss also filed therein. 

Case 2:13-cv-01113-DJH Document 34 Filed 12/10/13 Page 2 of 2