David E. Bettini v. Mirabella, Kincaid, Frederick & Mirabella LLC, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 5, 2026
Docket2:25-cv-04876
StatusUnknown

This text of David E. Bettini v. Mirabella, Kincaid, Frederick & Mirabella LLC, et al. (David E. Bettini v. Mirabella, Kincaid, Frederick & Mirabella LLC, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
David E. Bettini v. Mirabella, Kincaid, Frederick & Mirabella LLC, et al., (D. Ariz. 2026).

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 David E Bettini, No. CV-25-04876-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Mirabella, Kincaid, Frederick & Mirabella LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff David E. Bettini filed a complaint and two motions. Bettini’s first motion 16 requests permission to file documents electronically. (Doc. 3.) That request is granted. His 17 second motion requests the court grant “reasonable accommodations under the Americans 18 with Disabilities Act.” (Doc. 4.) Bettini argues that under the ADA “[c]ourts are required 19 to provide reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures when necessary to 20 avoid discrimination.” (Doc. 4 at 2.) Bettini then identifies the accommodations he believes 21 necessary, such as the need for remote appearances. (Doc. 4 at 2.) 22 The ADA “requires state courts to make disability accommodations,” but “does not 23 apply to federal courts.” Roman v. Jefferson at Hollywood LP, 495 F. App’x 804, 806 (9th 24 Cir. 2012). Despite the ADA not applying, “it has long been the policy of the Judicial 25 Conference of the United States to attempt to accommodate individuals with disabilities in 26 court proceedings.” Mapes v. Hatcher Real Est., No. 119CV02162JRSMJD, 2021 WL 27 5404626, at *5 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 4, 2021). Therefore, in appropriate circumstances 28 accommodations are provided to litigants. Bettini’s current request, however, is premature. 1 All of the accommodations Bettini seeks relate to in-court proceedings. (Doc. 4 at 2-3.) No 2 in-court proceedings are scheduled. If such proceedings are scheduled, Bettini may raise 3 his need for accommodations at that time. 4 IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Electronic Filing (Doc. 3) is GRANTED. 5 Plaintiff shall comply with all rules outlined in the District of Arizona’s Case 6 Management/Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, 7 register as a subscriber to PACER (Public Access to Electronic Records) within five days 8 of the date of this Order, and comply with the privacy policy of the Judicial Conference of 9 the United States and E-Government Act of 2002. Any misuse of the ECF system will 10 result in immediate discontinuation of this privilege and disabling of the password assigned 11 to the party. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Accommodations (Doc. 4) is 13 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows: 15 Governing Rules 16 Both counsel and pro se litigants must abide by the Rules of Practice of the U.S. 17 District Court for the District of Arizona (“Local Rules”) and the Federal Rules of Civil 18 Procedure. 19 Disclosure Statements 20 Full compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 is required by plaintiff(s) 21 and defendant(s). Rule 7.1(a)(1) requires any nongovernmental corporation to file a 22 disclosure statement identifying “any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation 23 owning 10% or more of its stock.” Rule 7.1(a)(2) requires a party in an action where 24 jurisdiction is based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) to file a disclosure statement 25 identifying the citizenship of “every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to 26 that party.” A Corporate Disclosure Statement form is available at 27 https://www.azd.uscourts.gov/forms/disclosure-statement. 28 Service Deadline 1 Service of the summons and complaint on each defendant located in the United 2 States must occur within 90 days of filing the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If service 3 cannot occur within 90 days, a request for an extension may be filed before expiration of 4 the 90-day period. Any such request must set forth the reason why service has not been 5 accomplished and request a specific short additional period of time. If the court believes 6 your reason constitutes “good cause,” it will authorize a brief additional period to 7 accomplish service. 8 Proof of service must be filed with the Clerk of Court, in the form of an affidavit, 9 promptly after service has been made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). It is important to comply 10 with this requirement because absent proof of service, the court will have no way of 11 knowing that the complaint has been served. 12 This order serves as an express warning that the court will dismiss this action, 13 without further notice to plaintiff(s), with respect to any defendant that is not timely served. 14 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 15 Forms of Papers 16 The parties shall adhere to all of the requirements of Local Rule 7.1, including the 17 requirement that text and footnotes shall be no smaller than 13 point. Citations supporting 18 any textual proposition shall be included in the text, not in a footnote. 19 Notices of supplemental authority and responses to those notices are limited to 350 20 words excluding case captions and signature blocks. 21 Paper Courtesy Copies 22 Do not send paper courtesy copies of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a) 23 pleadings, short procedural motions (e.g., motions for extension of time), 26(f) reports, or 24 stipulations. A paper courtesy copy of dispositive motions (or other lengthy motions that 25 will be opposed) and any responses or replies thereto shall be either postmarked and mailed 26 to the judge or hand-delivered to the judge’s mailbox in the courthouse by the next business 27 day after the electronic filing. Do not attempt to deliver documents to the judge’s chambers. 28 Courtesy copies should be double-sided and include the ECF-generated header at the top 1 of each page. Courtesy copies of documents too large for stapling must be submitted in 2 three-ring binders. 3 Amending Pleadings 4 Before filing a motion for leave to amend a pleading, the party that wishes to amend 5 must seek the consent of the other parties in an attempt to file the amended pleading 6 pursuant to Local Rule 15.1(b). If any party is unwilling to consent, the motion for leave 7 to amend must indicate which party (or parties) will oppose the request. If a motion for 8 leave to amend a pleading fails to so indicate, the motion will be denied without prejudice 9 for failure to adhere to this order. 10 Motions and Stipulations 11 Every motion or stipulation, however mundane, must cite the rule(s) and/or law(s) 12 that permit the court to grant the requested relief. Requests for extensions of time must 13 include a brief explanation of why the extension is needed to help the court determine 14 whether there is good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). 15 To ensure timely case processing, a party moving for an extension of time, 16 enlargement of page limitations, or leave to file a document under seal shall indicate in the 17 motion whether the non-movant opposes the request and intends to file a written response. 18 If such a motion does not so indicate, it may be denied for failure to comply with this order. 19 Motions and stipulations should be accompanied by proposed orders. A proposed 20 order is not necessary for motions that will require a reasoned analysis from the court, or 21 for stipulations requesting issuance of the court’s standard protective order with no 22 amendments.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gabriel Roman v. Jefferson at Hollywood Lp
495 F. App'x 804 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
David E. Bettini v. Mirabella, Kincaid, Frederick & Mirabella LLC, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-e-bettini-v-mirabella-kincaid-frederick-mirabella-llc-et-al-azd-2026.