Free Motion to Strike - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

Elizabeth A. Petersen (#018377) Robert G. Vaught (#020717) SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 Telephone: (602) 382-6378 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant DriveTime Automotive Group IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Debra Jilka, Plaintiff, v. DriveTime Automotive Group aka Ugly Duckling Corporation, Defendant. No. CV-03-1369-PHX-MHM MOTION TO STRIKE "PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS DRIVETIME AUTOMOTIVE GROUP'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT" (Doc # 116) AND "PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT DRIVETIME AUTOMOTIVE GROUP'S SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACTS AND RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS" (Doc. #117)

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Defendant DriveTime Automotive Group aka Ugly Duckling Corporation ("DriveTime"), hereby moves to strike the following documents filed by Plaintiff on October 5, 2005: "Response to Defendants DriveTime Automotive Group's Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment" (Doc #116) and "Response to Defendant DriveTime Automotive Group's Supplemental Statement of Facts and Response to Defendant's Objections" (Doc. #117). These two submissions represent an untimely and inappropriate attempt to reargue the merits of DriveTime's Motion for Summary Judgment, which was filed on August

Case 2:03-cv-01369-MHM

Document 118

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

29, 2005. Plaintiff filed her Response to DriveTime's Motion for Summary Judgment on September 7, 2005. Briefing for both parties ended on September 26, 2005, when DriveTime filed its Reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. See Rule 1.10, Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Plaintiff's pleadings are clearly inappropriate attempts to respond to DriveTime's Reply to its Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff responds directly to the arguments contained in DriveTime's Reply, and to the Supplemental Statements of Fact DriveTime cites in support of its Reply. Plaintiff may not file an "Answer" to DriveTime's Reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. For the foregoing reasons, DriveTime respectfully asks the Court to strike "Plaintiff's Response to Defendants DriveTime Automotive Group's Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment" (Doc #116) and "Response to Defendant DriveTime Automotive Group's Supplemental Statement of Facts and Response to Defendant's Objections" (Doc. #117). RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 12th day of October, 2005. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. By: /s/Robert G. Vaught Elizabeth A. Petersen Robert G. Vaught One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 Attorneys for Defendant DriveTime

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Case 2:03-cv-01369-MHM

Document 118 2 - Filed 10/12/2005

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

ORIGINAL of the foregoing filed electronically with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court this 12th day of October, 2005. and I hereby certify that on October 12, 2005, I served the attached document by mail, on the following, who is not a registered participant of the CM/ECF System: Debra Jilka 1738 W 6th Ave. Mesa, AZ 85202 480-969-7263 Pro Per /s/ Roonie McFarland
26785.0149\FEINBER\PHX\1738081.1

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Case 2:03-cv-01369-MHM

Document 118 3 - Filed 10/12/2005

Page 3 of 3