Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00188/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00188-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alejandro Araiza
Plaintiff
Milton Kent Mecham
Defendant
Mecham & Associates, Chartered
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alejandro Araiza, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Milton Kent Mecham doing business as

Mecham & Associates, Chartered,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-0188 PHX DGC

ORDER

On June 17, 2010, Plaintiff Alejandro Araiza filed a motion for leave to file an

amended complaint (Doc. 20). Defendant Milton Kent Mecham d/b/a Mecham &

Associates, Chartered, did not file a response to the motion within the time period allowed

by the Local Rules. See L.R. Civ. P. 7.2(c) (“The opposing party shall . . . have fourteen (14)

days after service in a civil or criminal case within which to serve and file a responsive

memorandum.”). The Court will treat Plaintiff’s lack of response as consent to the motion

to amend pursuant to Rule 7.2(i) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. See L.R. Civ. P.

7.2(i) (stating that, if a party fails to “file the required answering memoranda,” “such noncompliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court

may dispose of the motion summarily”).

Case 2:10-cv-00188-DGC Document 25 Filed 07/16/10 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 -

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 20) is granted.

DATED this 16th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00188-DGC Document 25 Filed 07/16/10 Page 2 of 2