United States District Court, D. Arizona
Quentin R Tezak Irrevocable Living Trust April 11th 2014, Plaintiff,
JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al., Defendants.
A. TEILTRORG, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank's
(“Chase”) Motion to Strike Amended Response to
Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Leave to
File Reply to Amended Response (Doc. 14) (hereinafter,
“Motion”). The Court now rules on this Motion.
October 24, 2018, Plaintiff Quentin R Tezak Irrevocable
Living Trust (“Plaintiff”) filed a quiet title
action by and through Robert J. Tezak, its sole trustee, in
the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for
Maricopa County. (Doc. 1-3 at 3-13). Plaintiff's civil
action names two Defendants: Chase, the lender, and Quality
Loan, the loan servicer. (Id. at 3, 8). Chase
received a copy of the Summons and Complaint for this civil
action on or about October 31, 2018. (Doc. 1 ¶ 3).
filed a Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) on November 19, 2018,
stating that removal is proper under 28 U.SC. § 1332.
(Doc. 1 ¶ 4). Chase claims that there is complete
diversity between the parties because Plaintiff is a citizen
of Arizona and Chase is a citizen of Ohio, but does not plead
the citizenship of Defendant Quality Loan. (Doc. 1 ¶ 6).
November 20, 2018, Chase filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7)
for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
After the time for responding to this Motion to Dismiss had
expired, the Court cautioned Plaintiff in an Order dated
December 19, 2018 that if no response was filed by December
28, 2018, the Court would deem the failure to respond to be
consent to the Motion to Dismiss being granted pursuant to
LRCiv 7.2(i). (Doc. 10). On December 28, 2018, Plaintiff
filed a one-page Response to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11),
stating only that: “[t]he signatures of Quentin and
Betty Tezak are forged[.] [W]e can provide the actual
signatures of Quentin and Betty Tezak.” (Doc. 11 at 1).
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an Amended Response to
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) (hereinafter,
“Amended Response”) on January 8, 2019.
January 9, 2019, Chase filed a Reply in Support of its Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. 12). Then, on January 16, 2019, Chase filed
the Motion at issue (Doc. 14), asking that the Court strike
Plaintiff's Amended Response pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(m)(1)
because the filing is not authorized by statute, rule, or
Court Order, and because Robert J. Tezak, trustee of
Plaintiff Quentin R Tezak Irrevocable Living Trust, commits
the unauthorized practice of law in representing Plaintiff in
this Court. (Doc. 14 at 1). Alternatively, Chase
requests leave to file a Reply to Plaintiff's Amended
Response to address the new arguments Plaintiff asserts in
the Amended Response which were not previously raised in the
Complaint or in Plaintiff's first Response to the Motion
to Dismiss. (Id. at 2).
7.2(m)(1) provides that a party may move to strike “any
part of a filing or submission on the ground that it is
prohibited (or not authorized) by a statute, rule, or court
order.” The Court agrees with Chase that
Plaintiff's Amended Response (Doc. 13) is an unauthorized
filing, as neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this
Court's local rules, or a Court Order permit
Plaintiff's Amended Response. Moreover, there is no good
cause for Plaintiff to file an Amended Response, as the
Amended Response merely appears to be Plaintiff's attempt
to fix the deficiencies in its original, one-page response.
However, the decision to grant or deny a motion to strike is
within the discretion of the trial court. Sunburst
Minerals, LLC v. Emerald Copper Corp., 300 F.Supp.3d
1056, 1059 (D. Ariz. 2018). As Chase itself stated that the
new allegations in Plaintiff's Amended Response “do
not change the outcome, ” (Doc. 14 at 2), the Court
will deny Chase's Motion (Doc. 14) to the extent it seeks
to strike Plaintiff's Amended Response. Nevertheless,
because Plaintiff's Amended Response asserts new
allegations not previously raised in its Complaint or in its
original response to the Motion to Dismiss, the Court grants
Chase leave to file an amended reply in support of its Motion
to Dismiss in order to address Plaintiff's new arguments.
on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that to the
extent Chase's Motion (Doc. 14) seeks to strike
Plaintiff's Amended Response (Doc. 13), it is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent Chase's
Motion (Doc. 14) seeks leave to file a Reply to
Plaintiff's Amended Response (Doc. 13) it is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Chase file a Supplemental
Notice of Removal which pleads the citizenship of Defendant
Quality Loan by January 25, 2019.
IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff file a status
report notifying the Court as to whether Defendant Quality
Loan has been served by January 25, 2019.
 The Court will defer consideration of
Chase's argument that Robert J. Tezak commits the
unauthorized practice of law in representing Plaintiff in
this Court until it rules on ...