Shaw v. United States of America

Filing 24

ORDER denying 20 MOTION for Hearing re 17 Response in opposition to motion filed by Vanessa Shaw. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 3/7/2012. (LMH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
VANESSA SHAW,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 2:11-cv-481-FtM-99SPC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff, Vanessa Shaw’s Reply and Second
Motion for Hearing (Doc. #20) filed on October 4, 2011. The Motion was referred to this Court by
the District Court on March 6, 2012.
The Plaintiff filed a Reply Brief in Response to the Defendant, United States of America’s
Response (Doc. # 17) to her Motion for a Hearing and Objection. “No party shall file any reply or
further memorandum directed to the motion or response . . . unless the Court grants leave.” M.D. Fla.
Local Rule 3.01(c). A motion requesting leave to file . . . a reply or further memorandum shall not
exceed three (3) pages, shall specify the length of the proposed filing, and shall not include, as an
attachment or otherwise, the proposed motion response, reply, or other paper. Torrence v. Pfizer,
Inc., 2007 WL 788368, *1 (M.D.Fla. March 14, 2007) (citing M.D. Fla. Local Rule 3.01(d)). The
purpose of a reply brief is to rebut any new law or facts contained in the oppositions response to a
request for relief before the Court.
As noted above the M.D. Fla. Local Rules require a party to seek permission from the Court
prior to filing a reply brief. In this instance, the Plaintiff did not seek the Court’s permission prior

to filing her Reply. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s Reply and Second Motion for a Hearing is due to be
denied.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
The Plaintiff, Vanessa Shaw’s Reply and Second Motion for Hearing (Doc. #20) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this

Copies: All Parties of Record

6th

day of March, 2012.