Driver et al v. D. Mosley Trucking, Inc. et al

Filing 182

ORDER granting 174 Motion for Leave to File Response; denying 177 Motion to Strike; terminating 178 Motion to Clarify. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on March 13, 2015. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION

LOIS DRIVER, et al
VS.

PLAINTIFFS
CASE NO. 4:13-cv-4074

D. MOSLEY TRUCKING, INC.,
et al

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Before the Court are the following motions: Defendants D. Mosley Trucking Inc. and
Ramon Colon’s Motion for Leave to File Response (ECF No. 174); Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike
Reply (ECF No. 177); and Defendants D. Mosley Trucking Inc. and Ramon Colon’s Motion to
Clarify (ECF No. 178). Responses to the motions have been filed. (ECF Nos. 175, 179, 180, &
181). These matters are ripe for the Court’s consideration.
Defendants D. Mosley Trucking Inc. and Ramon Colon’s Motion for Leave to File
Response and Motion to Clarify are related to Defendant New Millennium Building Systems,
LLC’s (“NMBS”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 167). D. Mosley Trucking
Inc. and Ramon Colon request permission to file a response to the NMBS’s motion to address
various issues raised in the motion. D. Mosley Trucking Inc. and Ramon Colon’s Motion to
Clarify seeks to clarify the positions that were raised in their Motion for Leave to File Response.
Upon consideration, the Court finds that the Motion for Leave to File Response (ECF No. 174)
should be and hereby is GRANTED. 1 The Clerk is directed to place ECF No. 174, Exh. 1 on

1

The Court has reviewed D. Mosley Trucking Inc. and Ramon Colon’s proposed response. Defendants raise the
issue of a conducting a separate trial on the punitive damages claim if that claim survives summary judgment. This
is an issue that needs to be raised and briefed in an independent motion after the punitive damages decision is made.
Accordingly, the Court will not address the bifurcation issue at this time.

the docket as D. Mosley Trucking Inc. and Ramon Colon’s response to NMBS’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 167). Any reply to the response must be filed on or before
March 18, 2015. The clarifications made in D. Mosley Trucking Inc. and Ramon Colon’s
Motion to Clarify (ECF No. 178) are noted. The Clerk is directed to terminate the motion.
Plaintiffs request that NMBS’s reply (ECF No. 176) in support of their partial summary
motion be struck as untimely. Plaintiffs also request that they be permitted to file a surreply.
NMBS’s reply was filed ten days after Plaintiffs’ response. Reading Local Rule 7.2 in
conjunction with Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) and 5(b)(2) and 5(b)(3), the Court finds that NMBS’s reply
was timely filed. As to Plaintiffs’ surreply request, the Court finds that further argument on
NMBS’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is not needed. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion
(ECF No. 177) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of March, 2015.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge