ORDER

LAWRENCE O. ANDERSON, District Judge.

This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Notice Regarding Completion of Briefing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff's Motion for Ruling Summary Disposition and Motion to Consolidate Motion for Preliminary Injunction with Trial on the Merits. (Doc. 21) Plaintiffs explain that their pending motions seek an order enjoin-ing Defendant from continuing with arbitration proceedings he initiated against Plaintiffs before Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") Dispute Resolution, the dispute resolution forum administered by the FINRA. (Id. at 2) Plaintiffs further advise that a pre-hearing conference is scheduled before the FINRA panel on April 18, 2012.

Though this lawsuit was only filed on January 20, 2012, Plaintiffs advise the Court that the foregoing motions, docs. 12 and 15, are ripe for ruling and request a ruling on the pending motions. The Court is well aware that the motions are ready for ruling. Candidly, Plaintiffs' Notice demonstrates a mistaken impression that Plaintiffs' lawsuit and motions are entitled to a greater priority or urgency than others with lower case numbers and a naivete that the judicial emergency declared for the District of Arizona in 2011 due to the dearth of federal judges is a mere fiction in the minds of the chief judges for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and District of Arizona. According to the Clerk's Data Quality and Statistical Manager and based upon the AO Director's Annual Report of Judicial Business, the District of Arizona ranked number one of the 94 districts in the United States for volume of felony defendant filings for FY-2011. For the last reporting period ending February 29, 2012, the District of Arizona's judges averaged 769 filings in the past 12 months (both criminal and civil combined), compared to the national average of 559 filings per year per judge. Clearly, the District of Arizona's judicial emergency is real, not imaginary, and, unfortunately for civil litigants and their counsel, criminal cases take priority.

Although the Court's extremely full calendar prevents it from ruling on the pending motions at this time, in the interest of promoting a fair resolution of this case consistent with Fed.R.Civ.P. 1, the Court will stay the arbitration before the FINRA until the Court has ruled on the pending motions and issued an order lifting the stay.

The Court has previously ordered the parties to comply with the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, including LRCiv 7.1(a)(3), which mandates that for captions, "[p]arty names must be capitalized using proper upper and lower case type[.]" LRCiv 7.1(a)(3). (A sample of proper capitalization is provided in Appendix C-LRCiv 7.1 Form). (Doc. 13 at 3) Plaintiffs' caption in its Notice Regarding Completion of Briefing violates LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) as each name is entirely in upper case type. Future violations of LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) and prior court orders will likely result in the imposition of sanctions against the offending attorney or party. See LRCiv.7.1(d)(5) and 83.1(f)

On the Court's own motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the arbitration proceedings between Plaintiffs and Defen-dant before the FINRA, including the pre-hearing conference set for April 18, 2012, are STAYED pending further order of this Court.