Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 41.8 kB
Pages: 3
Date: October 10, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 488 Words, 2,894 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/35161/69.pdf

Download Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona ( 41.8 kB)


Preview Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona
Andrew Thomas M ARICOPA C OUNTY A TTORNEY Daniel R. Brenden, Bar #016395 Mary C. Cronin, Bar #010816 Division of County Counsel 222 North Central Avenue, Ste. 1100 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2206 (602) 506-8541 Eileen Dennis GilBride, Bar #009220 J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Ste. 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 (602) 263-1700 Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County Department of Transportation, Medlin, Peterson and Ramsey IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Scott M. McNair, Plaintiff, vs. Maricopa County Department of Transportation; Kenneth Medlin; Terry Peterson; Jennipher Ramsey; State of Arizona Personnel Board, Defendants. RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE ORDER STRIKING HIS REPLY No. CIV03-2119-PHX-NVW

The Court need not vacate its order striking Plaintiff's summary judgment reply. The reply was not in compliance with this Court's local rules, and nothing Plaintiff could have said in response would have changed that. Pro se parties are not excused from knowing the rules of the court, Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 (9th Cir.1986). And yet the Court graciously gave Plaintiff until October 3 rd to file a compliant reply. Instead, on October 3 rd Plaintiff filed a pleading asking the Court for permission to file an oversized reply.

Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW

Document 69

Filed 10/10/2005

Page 1 of 3

Defendants have no objection to the Court allowing Plaintiff a few more days to file a reply that complies with the local rules, if the Court so desires. But there is no justification for vacating an order striking a reply that does not comply with the rules. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 10th day of October, 2005. J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C.

By /s/ Eileen Dennis GilBride Eileen Dennis GilBride 2901 North Central Ave., Ste. 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Co-Counsel for the County Defendants

ORIGINAL electronically filed this 10th day of October, 2005, with: Clerk of the Court U.S. District Court of Arizona 401 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85003 and copy delivered the same day to: Honorable Neil V. Wake United States District Court Judge 401 W. Washington Phoenix, AZ 85003 and copy mailed the same day to: Scott M. M cNair 5401 North Black Canyon Highway Phoenix, Arizona 85015 Plaintiff/appellant Pro Per and copies electronically delivered the same day to:

2 Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW Document 69 Filed 10/10/2005 Page 2 of 3

Andrew Thomas M ARICOPA C OUNTY A TTORNEY Daniel R. Brenden, Bar #016395 Mary C. Cronin, Bar #010816 Division of County Counsel 222 North Central Avenue, Ste. 1100 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2206 Attorneys for the County Defendants Craig Mousel Sunberg & Mousel 934 West McDowell Road Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Attorneys for Arizona State Personnel Board /s/ Eileen Dennis GilBride

3 Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW Document 69 Filed 10/10/2005 Page 3 of 3