Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00041/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00041-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Castro Romo
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jesus Castro Romo, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

United States of America,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-00041-TUC-JAS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Government’s Motion to Amend/Correct its Answer 

to add the affirmative defense reflected in A.R.S. §12-712(A) and (B). However, a review 

of the record shows this motion is likely unnecessary, because an Amended Answer was 

filed on June 7, 2012, which specifically claims the affirmative defense in question at page 

3, paragraph 8. (Doc. No. 16). The Court notes that the parties appear to have stipulated 

to allow amended pleadings until July 5, 2012. Joint Report Re: 26f Conference (Doc. 

No. 15, p. 9, para. 10 (June 4, 2012)). It also appears the scheduling order reflects such 

stipulated agreement. Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 17, p. 1, para. B). In any case, if the 

Amended Answer was filed in error or was otherwise not in compliance with court 

procedures, the record shows that Plaintiff had ample notice of the defense and would not 

suffer prejudice from its use by the government. 

The Government’s Motion to Amend its answer is, therefore, GRANTED.

1

 

1 The Court notes that Defendant bases its Motion partly on the alleged ambiguity of the statute’s constitutional

infirmity, which was remedied only by recent amendment in 2014. However, the statute’s relevant sections –

subsections (A) and (B) – remain unchanged since 2009 at the latest. See, e.g., Jacobs v. United States, 2013 WL 

3282082 *9, n.4 (D.Ariz. 2013). 

 

Case 4:12-cv-00041-JAS Document 86 Filed 07/18/14 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

Also pending is the Government’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Exhibit List and 

Preclude the Introduction of Non-Disclosed Exhibits. The Court notes that Plaintiff has 

averred that it plans to provide an updated exhibit list and binder to Defendant on July 18, 

which cures the bulk of Defendant’s concerns.

That motion is DENIED subject to Plaintiff’s compliance with the Federal Rules of 

Evidence for admission of documents at trial. 

 

Dated this 18th day of July, 2014.

Honorable James A. Soto

United States District Judge

 2 

Case 4:12-cv-00041-JAS Document 86 Filed 07/18/14 Page 2 of 2