IceMOS Technology Corporation v. Omron Corporation, CV-17-02575-PHX-JAT. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20181228659
Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 27, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , Senior District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant Omron Corporation's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ("Motion to Strike," Doc. 72). Without deciding whether Plaintiff IceMOS Technology Corporation technically complied with all of the requirements of Local Rule 12.1(c) in filing its Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ("Rule 12(c) Motion," Doc. 69), the Court deems Plaintiff to have substantially
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , Senior District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant Omron Corporation's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ("Motion to Strike," Doc. 72). Without deciding whether Plaintiff IceMOS Technology Corporation technically complied with all of the requirements of Local Rule 12.1(c) in filing its Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ("Rule 12(c) Motion," Doc. 69), the Court deems Plaintiff to have substantially c..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Omron Corporation's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ("Motion to Strike," Doc. 72). Without deciding whether Plaintiff IceMOS Technology Corporation technically complied with all of the requirements of Local Rule 12.1(c) in filing its Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ("Rule 12(c) Motion," Doc. 69), the Court deems Plaintiff to have substantially complied with the applicable local rules.
District of Arizona Local Rule 12.1(c) provides, in pertinent part:
"No [] motion for judgment on the pleadings on a claim or counterclaim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), will be considered or decided unless the moving party includes a certification that, before filing the motion, the movant notified the opposing party of the issues asserted in the motion and the parties were unable to agree that the pleading was curable in any part by a permissible amendment offered by the pleading party. The movant may comply with this rule through personal, telephonic, or written notice of the issues that it intends to assert in a motion. A motion that does not contain the required certification may be stricken summarily.
LRCiv 12.1(c) (emphasis added).
First, the Court reviewed the communications appended to Plaintiff's Response (Doc. 72) and finds that Plaintiff adequately attempted to confer with Defendant regarding the substance of its Rule 12(c) Motion (Doc. 69). (See, e.g., Doc 75-5; Doc. 75-7; Doc. 75-8; Doc. 75-10).1 The Court also observes that Plaintiff's Counsel offers a supplemental declaration in Plaintiff's Response (Doc. 72) certifying compliance with Local Rule 12.1(c). (Doc. 72 at 13; Doc. 75-1). Accordingly, the Court declines to strike Plaintiff's Rule 12(c) Motion (Doc. 69).
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Omron Corporation's Motion to Strike (Doc. 72) is DENIED. The parties shall respond and reply to the pending Rule 12(c) Motion (Doc. 69) in accordance with the timeline set forth in the Court's previous Order (Doc. 85) on the subject.
FootNotes
1. See, e.g., Marsh v. Zarcal Res Tempe LLC, No. CV-17-04057-PHX-DLR, 2018 WL 4282828, at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 7, 2018) (denying a motion to strike for failure to comply with LRCiv. 12.1(c) where the reply memorandum included communications demonstrating that the moving party had "adequately attempted to confer"); Cook v. Mountain Am. Fed. Credit Union, No. 2:18-CV-1548-HRH, 2018 WL 3707922, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 3, 2018) (finding that "Defense counsel adequately complied with Rule 12.1(c)" based on emails indicating "that it was [not] likely that the parties were going to reach agreement as to a permissible amendment").
Source: Leagle
