Graven v. Brnovich

1 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 William A. Graven, No. CV-22-00062-PHX-GMS 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Mark Brnovich, et al., 13 Defendants. [15] 16 Before the Court are four requests by William A. Graven (“Plaintiff”) to file motions 17 in this case. (Docs. 64, 66, 68, 70.) In compliance with the Court’s prior order that he seek 18 permission before filing any additional motions, (Doc. 55 at 4), Plaintiff now wishes to file 19 three motions to strike portions of the Defendants’ replies to their motions to dismiss, 20 (Docs. 64, 66, 68), and a motion for judgment “on Defendants’ 11 pleadings plus.” 21 (Doc. 70 at 1.) 22 Plaintiff’s three proposed motions to strike are accepted for consideration by the 23 Court, and denied. While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) contemplates motions to 24 strike “any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), 25 “even a properly made motion to strike is a drastic remedy which is disfavored by the courts 26 and infrequently granted.” Yount v. Regent Univ., Inc., No. CV-08-8011-PCT-DGC, 2009 27 WL 995596 , at *11 (D. Ariz. Apr. 14, 2009) (quoting Int’l Longshoreman’s Assoc. v. Va. 28 Int’l Terminals, Inc., 904 F. Supp. 500, 504 (E.D. Va. 1995)). To prevail, Plaintiff “must 1 show 1) that the material is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous or that the 2 requested relief is unavailable and 2) how such material will cause prejudice.” Vesecky v. 3 Matthews (Mill Towne Center) Real Estate, LLC, No. CV-09-1741-PHX-JAT, 2010 WL 4 749636, at *1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2010). Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that the 5 material he seeks to strike is “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.” Fed. R. 6 Civ. P. 12(f). To the extent the Plaintiff believes that the Defendants’ Reply misstates 7 Plaintiff’s pleadings, he may be reassured that the Court will read the Plaintiff’s actual 8 pleadings and give them the required deference they are due in deciding the Motion. 9 Therefore, his three proposed motions to strike are denied. 10 Plaintiff’s fourth request, to file a motion for judgment “on Defendants’ 11 11 pleadings plus,” is denied. (Doc. 70 at 1.) To the extent Plaintiff seeks judgment on the 12 pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), such a motion is untimely. Motions 13 for judgment on the pleadings may be brought only “[a]fter the pleadings are closed.” Fed. 14 R. Civ. P. 12(c). As the Court has not ruled on the two motions to dismiss, the pleadings 15 have not yet closed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1), (a)(4). And to the extent Plaintiff seeks 16 to bring a motion for summary judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), such a motion is 17 likewise untimely because no discovery has been taken in this case. “Generally[,] where a 18 party has had no previous opportunity to develop evidence and the evidence is crucial to 19 material issues in the case, discovery should be allowed before the trial court rules on a 20 motion for summary judgment.” Program Eng’g, Inc. v. Triangle Publ’ns, Inc., 634 F.2d 21 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 1980). As the two motions to dismiss are fully briefed and submitted 22 for the Court’s consideration, any further dispositive motion practice is inappropriate at 23 this time. 24 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Requests to File (Docs. 64, 66, 25 and 68). 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to file the Motions 27 to Strike lodged at Docs. 65, 67, and 69. 28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions to Strike are DENIED. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs request to file a Motion for Judgment “on Defendants’ 11 pleadings plus” (Doc. 70) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed 4|| to strike the document lodged at Doc. 71. 5 Dated this 2nd day of May, 2022. ° Wars ) 7 Hrsg Sod 8 Chief United States District Judge [28] -3-