Rosenbaum v. Bank of America NA

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 5, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-02072
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Levi Rosenbaum, No. CV-22-02072-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Bank of America NA, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Joint Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Response 16 and Proposed Third Amended Complaint (“PTAC”). (Doc. 46). Plaintiff has not responded. 17 The Court now rules. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 On March 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Response, (Doc. 44), to Defendants’ Motion to 20 Dismiss, (Doc. 35), and attached a PTAC per the Court’s February 21, 2024, Order at Doc. 21 42. In that Order, the Court instructed Plaintiff that if he wishes to file a third amended 22 complaint, he should address how that amended complaint would cure the deficiencies in 23 his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (See Doc. 42 at 2). Defendants now move to 24 strike Plaintiff’s Response and the PTAC. 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 In their Motion to Strike, Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to comply with 27 the Local Rules in his Response and attached proposed third amended complaint. (Doc. 28 46). Specifically, Defendants state: 1 the Local Rules require filings to be in the following format (LRCiv 7.1(b)) and length (LRCiv 7.2(e)): 2 1. They shall be double-spaced and, more specifically, “they shall not be single- 3 spaced except for footnotes and indented quotations”); Plaintiff’s Response is single-spaced; 4 2. They shall not exceed 28 lines per page; 5 Plaintiff’s Response is approximately 44 lines per page; 3. They shall be in a font size no small than 13 point; and 6 Plaintiff’s Response is, generally, 11 point (Calibri) font; 7 4. Responsive memoranda may not exceed 17 pages; Plaintiff’s Response is 34 pages. 8 (Doc. 46 at 2). 9 A party may “seek[] to strike any part of a filing or submission on the ground that 10 it is prohibited (or not authorized) by a statute, rule, or court order.” LRCiv 7.2(m)(1). 11 After reviewing Plaintiff’s Response and PTAC, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s 12 filings do not comply with the Local Rules in the ways stated above in Defendants’ Motion. 13 Beyond what Defendants point out above, the PTAC also does not comply with Local 14 Rules 7.1 or 15.1(a). The Court reminds Plaintiff for a final time that despite being a pro 15 se litigant, he still must comply with the Local Rules. Ghazali v. Morgan, 46 F.3d 52, 54 16 (9th Cir. 1995) (pro se litigants “are bound by the rules of procedure”). The Court 17 hyperlinked the Local Rules in its last Order but will do so again here.1 (See Doc. 42 at 2, 18 n.1). Per the Court’s last order, Plaintiff must substantively respond to Defendants’ 19 Motions to Dismiss, (Doc. 35, 36), in a manner that complies with the Local Rules. 20 Additionally, if Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint, he must explain to the Court how 21 his proposed complaint will cure any deficiencies in the SAC and attach a proposed 22 amended complaint, that complies with the Local Rules. Failure by Plaintiff to 23 substantively respond in an acceptable format will result in dismissal of the action pursuant 24 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 Accordingly, 27

28 1 For Plaintiff’s reference: Local Rules of Practice and Procedure of the United states District Court for the District of Arizona. 1 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Joint Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response and 2|| Proposed Third Amended Complaint, (Doc. 46), is GRANTED. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall STRIKE □□□□□□□□□□□ Response, (Doc. 44), and Plaintiff Proposed Third Amended Complaint, (Doc. 44-1). 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days to 6 || resubmit his response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 35), in a form that complies with the Court’s February 21, 2024 Order, this Order, and the Local Rules. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants will have seven (7) days after 9|| Plaintiff serves his response to file a reply. 10 Dated this 5th day of April, 2024. 11 12 A 7 5 13 14 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-