on the internet and sent a copy to all 1,500 readers of Arizona Com-mon Sense, including some 1,200 members of the Pima County Bar.
Subsequently; on or about April 02, 2013 Plaintiff, who had alreadyspent substantial time preparing documents necessary for a conferencewith Counsel for Defendants on or before April 10, 2013 and requiredfor the status conference now set for May 01, 2013, received the Order of this Court requiring Plaintiff to answer Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment no later than April 22, 2013.
Thus; from time he received the Order of this Court regarding sum-mary judgment, to the time his answer was due, this non-legal pro-sePlaintiff was given 19 days to answer summary judgment, along withfinishing all preparations, including the joint report, necessary for thestatus hearing ordered by the Court for May 01, 2013.
Therefore: on April 02, 2013 Plaintiff notified Counsel for Defendantsthat, due to “family circumstances” he intended to move the Court for additional time to answer summary judgment, and asked if they would“join the motion or oppose it.”
As of the date of filing this Motion Counsel for Defendants has not re-sponded.
In his supporting Declaration, Plaintiff sets forth with particularity the“family circumstances” which now require the Plaintiff to Move thisCourt for a time extension.
However; regarding this Motion: Plaintiff’s has recently discoveredthe judge now presiding over this case, the Honorable David Bury, hasan undisclosed conflict of interest arising out of another case, Lucas vSowers, he presided over several years ago. Plaintiff is preparing the pleadings necessary to address this issue.
Moreover; the time has come for Plaintiff (reluctantly) to advise theCourt of the following: Plaintiff has shared every pleading and every