Araiza
v.
Mecham

United States District Court, D. ArizonaJul 16, 2010
No. CV10-0188 PHX DGC. (D. Ariz. Jul. 16, 2010)

No. CV10-0188 PHX DGC.

July 16, 2010


ORDER


On June 17, 2010, Plaintiff Alejandro Araiza filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 20). Defendant Milton Kent Mecham d/b/a Mecham Associates, Chartered, did not file a response to the motion within the time period allowed by the Local Rules. See L.R. Civ. P. 7.2(c) ("The opposing party shall . . . have fourteen (14) days after service in a civil or criminal case within which to serve and file a responsive memorandum."). The Court will treat Plaintiff's lack of response as consent to the motion to amend pursuant to Rule 7.2(i) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. See L.R. Civ. P. 7.2(i) (stating that, if a party fails to "file the required answering memoranda," "such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily"). IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to amend (Doc. 20) is granted.