Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00840/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00840-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Edward G. Lesofski, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Jarrod Lash, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-840 TUC DCB

ORDER

On June 25, 2013, this Court denied in part and granted in part a Motion for

Judgment on the Pleadings filed by the Arizona School of Acupuncture & Oriental Medicine

(the School) and a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Accreditation Commission for

Acupuncture & Oriental Medicine (the Commission). The Court set a deadline for the parties

to complete discovery by October 1, 2013, to file dispositive motions by November 1, 2013,

and file a pretrial order by December 1, 2013. (Order (Doc. 105) at 8.).

The Court directed the Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint, nunc pro tunc,

to change the caption of the Third Claim to Fraud by Misrepresentation, the only claim

remaining against the Commission. The Court dismissed the Fourth Claim for bullying. 

Since then, Defendant Don Lightener, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which

explains that the Second Amended Complaint mentions him three times: ¶ 14) names him as

the Academic Dean of the School and point contact for disabled students; ¶ 90) alleges he

never contacted the Plaintiff to work with him; and ¶ 91) alleges the Plaintiff attempted to

contact Lightner through email but never got a response. Defendant Lightener has attempted

Case 4:11-cv-00840-DCB Document 124 Filed 09/12/13 Page 1 of 4
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

Dismissal is proper where party fails to follow a district court's local rules. United

States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979).

2

to get the Plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss him from this action because these three allegations

fail to state a claim against him in the Second Amended Complaint. 

Defendant Lightener has well grounded reasons for seeking summary judgment.

Plaintiff has failed to file a Response. 

Under Rule 7.2(i) of the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

District of Arizona, a failure to file a responsive pleading may be deemed consent to the

motion and this Court may dispose of the motion summarily.1

 “A motion for summary

judgment cannot be granted simply because the opposing party violated a local rule.”

Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722, 725 (9th Cir. 1995) This is so because a party may oppose

a motion for summary judgment without offering affidavits or any other materials in support

of its opposition. “‘Summary judgment may be resisted and must be denied on no other

grounds than that the movant has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the absence of

triable issues.’” Henry v. Gill Industries Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993).

Here the Court has reviewed the Complaint and considered the merits of the motion

and the case. In light of these considerations, the Court finds that summarily granting the

motion is warranted, pursuant to Rule 7.2(i). 

In reviewing the case the Court discovered that the Plaintiff has failed to file the

Second Amended Complaint, nunc pro tunc, as directed by the Court to correct the caption

for the Third Claim to be Fraud by Misrepresentation.

It also appears that the Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Commission’s Requests

for Admissions because the Commission has filed a motion asking this Court to deem the

Requests admitted. Plaintiff’s response to the Motion for Court Order Deeming Request for

Admissions Propounded to Plaintiff Admitted is due September 13, 2013. Any failure by the

Case 4:11-cv-00840-DCB Document 124 Filed 09/12/13 Page 2 of 4
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

Plaintiff to file a Response shall be deemed his consent to summarily grant the Commission’s

motion, pursuant to LR Civ. 7.2(i).

The Commission has noticed the Plaintiff’s deposition for September 16, 2013, at

9:00 a.m. in Phoenix, Arizona. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for a Protective Order seeking

to have the deposition done telephonically or by electronic means in Montana where he

resides. Plaintiff asserts that he has difficulty traveling because he has a service dog and that

he is currently undergoing cancer treatment. The limited information provided by Plaintiff

is insufficient for the Court to find that Plaintiff should not attend a deposition in this State

where he has filed suit and invoked the legal protections of this forum. (Response to Motion

for Protective Order (Doc. 121) at 3) (citations omitted). However, the Court is concerned

that depositions not be any more burdensome than necessary. The Court anticipates that the

School will also want to depose the Plaintiff, but that deposition has not yet been noticed.

The Commission has filed a motion requesting a Second Rule 16 Scheduling

Conference, which was held prior to the Commission’s appearance in the case. The Court

will grant the request for a Scheduling Conference to afford the parties an opportunity to

update the case management deadlines. The parties should discuss actual dates for the

Plaintiff’s deposition. Defendants should attempt to coordinate their depositions so that

Plaintiff’s travel is minimized. The parties should consider whether an electronic deposition

might serve their needs for purposes of filing dispositive motions, if a subsequent in-person

in Tucson, Arizona, deposition were conducted for purposes of trial, in the event the case is

not resolved by dispositive motion. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 109) is

GRANTED, and the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss Defendant Lightener from the case.

Case 4:11-cv-00840-DCB Document 124 Filed 09/12/13 Page 3 of 4
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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 5 days of the filing date of this Order, the

Plaintiff shall refile the Second Amended Complaint, with the caption of the Third Claim

changed to Fraud by Misrepresentation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s deposition set on September 16,

2013, is QUASHED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for a Rule 16 Scheduling

Conference (Doc. 118) is GRANTED, which is set for Thursday, September 19, 2013 at

10:00 a.m. The conference will be held telephonically with the Judge's law clerk, Greer

Barkley. Plaintiffs' counsel shall initiate the conference call with all appropriate

parties on the line to (520) 205-4560. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Hold Deposition

Electronically/for Protective Order (Doc. 120) IS DENIED AS MOOT.

DATED this 11th day of September, 2013.

Case 4:11-cv-00840-DCB Document 124 Filed 09/12/13 Page 4 of 4