Hodge v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Najib A Hodge,
Plaintiff,
v.
JPMorgan Chase Bank NA,
Defendant.
No. CV-24-00932-PHX-SHD
ORDER
Pending are four motions filed by Plaintiff Najib A. Hodge: a motion for
reconsideration, (Doc. 168), a motion to amend his complaint, (Doc. 176), a motion for
leave to file a sur-reply, (Doc. 179), and a motion to strike portions of Defendant JPMorgan
Chase Bank N.A.’s (“JPMorgan”) Response to Hodge’s motion for summary judgment,
(Doc. 190). In addition, since the last order striking Hodge’s improper filings, Hodge has
filed thirty-two “Notices,” “Supplements,” and “Statements” which attempt to lodge
evidence on the docket, make arguments outside the regular course of briefing, and/or
amend previous filings. (See Docs. 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 178, 181, 182, 185, 186, 188,
189, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208,
209, 210, 211.) Hodge has also lodged on the docket an amended complaint, two sur-
replies, and a proposed order granting his motion to strike. (Docs. 177, 180, 183, 193.)
Hodge’s motion for reconsideration, (Doc. 168), will be denied because he fails to
make the requisite showing under Local Rule 7.2(g)(1). (See e.g., Doc. 159 at 8–9; Doc.
167.) His motion to amend his complaint, (Doc. 176), will be denied because he fails to
Case 2:24-cv-00932-SHD Document 212 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
demonstrate good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), as explained in
the October 10, 2025 Order. (Doc. 125 at 4–6; see also Doc. 159 at 9–10.)
Hodge also moves to strike portions of JPMorgan’s Response to his motion for
summary judgment because it violates Rules 12(f) and 56(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and because it raises new arguments and evidence not raised in
JPMorgan’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 133). (Doc. 190.) As an initial matter,
JPMorgan’s Response, (Doc. 172), addresses Hodge’s motion for summary judgment,
(Doc. 136), not its own, (Doc. 133), and thus, is not confined by JPMorgan’s motion for
summary judgment. In any event, having reviewed JPMorgan’s Response, it is not
“redundant, impertinent, or scandalous” and therefore does not violate Rule 12(f). As for
Rule 56(c)(2), which permits objections to the admissibility of evidence presented in a
motion for summary judgment, such objections must be made in summary judgment
briefing, as Hodge has previously been informed. (See Doc. 159 (quoting LRCiv 7.2(m)
for the proposition that “objections to ‘the admissibility of evidence offered in support or
in opposition to a motion must be presented in the objecting party’s responsive or reply
memorandum and not in a separate motion to strike or other filing.’”).) Thus, to the extent
Hodge objects to the admissibility of JPMorgan’s evidence, a motion to strike is not the
appropriate vehicle for those arguments.
Next, I will address Hodge’s multiple replies and sur-replies. On November 9,
2025—over a month before JPMorgan responded to Hodge’s motion for summary
judgment—Hodge replied to his own motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 147 (Reply to
Response to Motion re: 136 First Motion for Summary Judgment).) This Reply was
premature and will be stricken.
JPMorgan timely responded to Hodge’s motion for summary judgment on
December 22, 2025. (Doc. 172.) On December 30, 2025, Hodge filed a motion for leave
to file a sur-reply, (Doc. 179), which will be construed as a motion to file a reply and will
be granted. The Reply lodged at Doc. 180 shall be filed on the docket. On January 2,
2026, Hodge filed a Notice re: Lodging Sur Reply Supplement, (Doc. 182), and lodged a
Case 2:24-cv-00932-SHD Document 212 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
supplemented sur-reply, (Doc. 183). These supplements to Hodge’s Reply will be stricken
for the reasons stated in prior orders. (See, e.g., Doc. 125 at 7, 8 (striking supplemental
notices because “the docket is not the appropriate avenue to continually file notices or
supplementary evidence fine-tuning arguments made in motions past” and reminding
Hodge that “it is his responsibility to articulate his arguments in each of his filings, and to
take sufficient time to include all arguments that he wishes to raise in the first instance”)
(citation modified).)
Hodge’s remaining filings are improper. He has been repeatedly warned that he
“may not use ‘Notices’ to lodge evidence with the Court or make arguments outside the
regular course of briefing” (Doc. 167) and his filings have been accordingly stricken,
(Docs. 125, 127, 130, 159, 160, 167). Motions for summary judgment have been filed and
briefing on those motions has closed.1 (Docs. 133, 136, 147, 172.) The motions for
summary judgment will be ruled on in due course. In the meantime, Hodge is prohibited
from filing further evidence or argument in support of his motion or in opposition to
JPMorgan’s motion. Any such improper filings will be summarily stricken.
Hodge must comply with the Local and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
ordinary course of motions practice outlined in those rules. Further improper filings will
not be tolerated and will be summarily stricken. Hodge is further warned that failure to
abide by this and prior orders will result in sanctions.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion for Reconsideration re: 167 Order, (Doc.
168).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Motion to Amend/Correct Amended
Complaint, (Doc. 176).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking the Reply to Response to Motion re: 136
First Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 147) as premature.
1 Hodge did not file a response to JPMorgan’s motion for summary judgment and the
time to do so has passed. (See Doc. 159 at 10 (denying Hodge’s motion to strike
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment “without prejudice to Hodge properly raising
his arguments in a timely response”).)
Case 2:24-cv-00932-SHD Document 212 Filed 04/22/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED construing the Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply
to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 179), as a
motion for leave to file a Reply and granting the motion. The Reply lodged at Doc. 180
shall be filed on the docket.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Docs. 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178,
181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 188, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201,
202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 for the reasons stated above.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED directing Hodge that he may not file any further
evidence or argument in support of or opposition to the pending motions for summary
judgment.
Dated this 21st day of April, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-00932-SHD Document 212 Filed 04/22/26 Page 4 of 4