Hobbs v. M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: March 13, 2023
• Docket: 4:22-cv-00540
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Lawrence H Hobbs, No. CV-22-00540-TUC-JCH (JR)

10 Plaintiff, Consolidated with:

11 v. No. CV-22-00290-TUC-JCH

12 M3 Engineering & Technology ORDER Corporation, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff's Motion to File Excess Pages (Doc. 26). 16 Plaintiff simultaneously lodged an 89-page "Responsive Memorandum In Opposition to 17 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs Counter Motions for Striking Defendants 18 Pleading, Default Judgment, and/or[] Summary Judgment" (Doc. 27.) Plaintiff states he 19 must exceed the local 17-page limit for motions because "everything which is required to 20 be said, must be said without limitation" and because "three (3) counter motions are 21 included herein, thus additional pagination [should be] allowed pursuant to those three 22 motions." Doc. 26 at 2. 23 The Court is mindful of its obligation to treat pro se litigants liberally when it 24 comes to procedural requirements. See, e.g., Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 25 For that reason, the Court will grant Plaintiff's Motion to the extent he seeks excusal from 26 the page limit to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8). But the Court will 27 also deny in part without prejudice to the extent Plaintiff seeks to mix his response to 28 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with a motion to strike, a motion for default judgment, |} and a motion for summary judgment. If Plaintiff wishes to move to strike, for default || judgment, or for summary judgment, he is obliged to file those motions separately and 3 || distinctly—and to comply with the local rules when doing so. 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED GRANTING IN PART Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 26) to the 6 || extent it seeks relief to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8). 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE 8 || Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 26) to the extent it seeks relief to file multiple motions together 9|| with his response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8). 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DIRECTING the Clerk of the Court to file Plaintiff's proposed Responsive Memorandum (Doc. 27). 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DIRECTING Defendants to reply to Plaintiff's 13 || Responsive Memorandum (Doc. 27) to the extent it responds to Defendants’ Motion to 14|| Dismiss (Doc. 8) under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12. Defendants shall 15 || respond no later than March 24, 2023. 16 Dated this 10th day of March, 2023. 17 18

19 WS Ht br-b onorable John C. Hinderaker 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-