Lincoln Benefit Life Company v. LaFrance et al

Filing 97

ORDER denying 96 Motion to Strike Reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 7/6/2017. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:16-cv-538-Orl-40TBS

ADRIENNE LAFRANCE, NELDA
LAFRANCE, CAROLE JEAN FRANCOIS
and ATILIA LERISSON MASSE,
Defendants.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court without oral argument on Cross-Defendant
Carole Jean Francois’ Motion to Strike Cross-Claimants’ Reply to Carole Jean Francois’
Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 96). The Court sees no reason to
await the filing of responses before ruling on the motion.
On June 1, 2017, Defendants Adrienne LaFrance and Nelda LaFrance filed a
motion for summary judgment (Doc. 89). Carole Jean Francois filed a timely response in
opposition to the motion (Doc. 91). Fourteen days later, Adrienne LaFrance and Nelda
LaFrance submitted their reply to Carole Jean Francois’ response (Doc. 95). Now, Carole
Jean Francois argues that the reply should be stricken because it was filed without leave
of Court in violation of Local Rule 3.01(c) which states that: “No party shall file any reply
or further memorandum directed to the motion or response allowed in (a) and (b) unless
the Court grants leave.”
Carole Jean Francois’ motion is DENIED because it fails to comply with Local Rule
3.01(g).

The motion is also DENIED because the Case Management and Scheduling Order
which governs this case provides that when a motion for summary judgment is filed:
The Court will accept a ten (10) page reply without leave of
Court. The reply shall be limited to addressing issues raised
by the opposing party that have not already been addressed in
the motion. The reply shall be filed within fourteen (14) days
after the response is served.
(Doc. 42 at 8).
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on July 6, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-2-