City of Bradenton, Florida v. Safety National Casualty Corporation

Filing 21

ORDER: Plaintiff City of Bradenton's Motion to Strike the Notice of Filing Supplemental Authority (Doc. # 18 ) is GRANTED. Defendant Safety National Casualty Corporation's Notice of Filing Supplemental Authority (Doc. # 17 ) is STRICKEN. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 6/6/2017. (DMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
CITY OF BRADENTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 8:17-cv-267-T-33MAP

SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY
CORP.,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
Plaintiff City of Bradenton’s Motion to Strike the Notice of
Filing Supplemental Authority (Doc. # 18), filed on May 30,
2017.

Defendant

Safety

National

Casualty

Corporation

responded in opposition to the Motion. (Doc. # 20). For the
reasons that follow, the Motion is granted and the Notice of
Filing Supplemental Authority is stricken.
Discussion
On

February

27,

2017,

the

Court

entered

its

Case

Management and Scheduling Order, which authorized the filing
of motions for summary judgment on the specific issue of the
statute of limitations. (Doc. # 12). That order specified
that “No reply will be allowed.” (Id. at 1). Safety National
filed its motion for summary judgment as to the statute of
1

limitations on May 1, 2017, (Doc. # 14), to which the City
responded on May 19, 2017, (Doc. # 16). Subsequently, on May
26,

2017,

Safety

National

filed

a

Notice

of

Filing

Supplemental Authority (Doc. # 17), describing and attaching
copies of five cases that were decided before Safety National
filed its motion for summary judgment.
In its Notice, Safety National notes that the City also
cited some of the listed cases in its response to the motion
for summary judgment, but Safety National asserts these cases
are distinguishable for reasons stated in the notice. (Id. at
2-4). For example, in its parenthetical summation for Oriole
Gardens Condominiums, III v. Independence Casualty & Surety
Co., No. 11-60294-CIV, 2012 WL 718803 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 6,
2012), Safety National writes:
[R]elied upon by Plaintiff in its Memorandum of Law
for the proposition that a statute of limitations
does not begin to run until all conditions
precedent to payment have been completed or
satisfied [see Doc. No. 16, at pp. 7-8]; however,
the Oriole Gardens court also distinguishingly
noted that: i) there was no specific denial of the
claim contained within the 2005 letter on which the
carrier based its statute of limitations argument;
ii) the carrier admitted that it did not
specifically deny the claim in this 2005 letter,
and; iii) the carrier “clearly invited” the insured
to submit additional information, indicating that
the claim was open and ongoing.
(Doc. # 20 at 2-3)(emphasis added).

2

The

City

has

now

filed

a

motion

to

strike

Safety

National’s notice because it was filed without leave and
attempts to circumvent the Court’s order that no reply should
be

filed.

(Doc.

#

18).

The

City

stresses

that

Safety

National’s Notice lists cases decided years before the motion
for summary judgment was filed, as well as cases already cited
in the City’s response. (Id. at 3); see also Barron v.
Snyder’s-Lance, Inc., No. 13-62496-CIV, 2014 WL 2686060, at
*1

(S.D.

Fla.

June

13,

2014)(stating

that

a

notice

of

supplemental authority “should direct the Court’s attention
to legal authority or evidence that was not available to the
filing party at the time” that party filed its original brief
and “should not make legal arguments”). The City argues the
Notice violates Local Rule 3.01(c), which provides that “No
party shall file any reply or further memorandum directed at
the motion or response . . . unless the Court grants leave.”
M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(c).
In response, Safety National asserts its Notice “does
not introduce new arguments” and “the brief summaries that
follow

each

citation

simply

restate

relevant

facts

or

holdings from each opinion.” (Doc. # 20 at 1). The Court
disagrees. Safety National’s attempt to distinguish cases
relied upon by the City is a new argument intended to bolster
3

Safety National’s own motion for summary judgment. Cf. Hodges
v. Sch. Bd. of Orange Cty., Fla., No. 6:11-cv-135-Orl-36,
2012 WL 5457427, at *4 n.5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 8, 2012)(“First,
as Plaintiffs have already discussed Umbehr in their Response
to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, it is not a new
authority, for which a notice of supplemental authority is
warranted. Moreover, Defendant cannot raise new arguments in
a Notice of Supplemental Authority, or attempt to file an
additional reply to Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, without leave of
Court.” (internal citations omitted)).
Thus, the Notice is a further memorandum for which Safety
National should have sought leave to file. Because Safety
National failed to comply with Local Rule 3.01(c) and the
Court already stated that no reply will be allowed, the City’s
Motion to Strike (Doc. # 18) is granted and Safety National’s
Notice

of

Filing

Supplemental

Authority

(Doc.

#

17)

is

stricken.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Plaintiff

City

of

Bradenton’s

Motion

to

Strike

the

Notice of Filing Supplemental Authority (Doc. # 18) is
GRANTED.
4

(2)

Defendant Safety National Casualty Corporation’s Notice
of

Filing

Supplemental

Authority

(Doc.

#

17)

is

STRICKEN.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 6th
day of June, 2017.

5