TAYLOR et al v. DICKINSON FINANCIAL CORP II INC et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying 63 Motion to Strike ; denying 63 Motion for Leave to File. Ordered by U.S. District Judge HUGH LAWSON on 11/13/2014. (nbp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
LEE WARD, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 7:14-CV-8 (HL)

DICKINSON FINANCIAL CORP. II,
INC., DICKINSON FINANCIAL
CORP., BANK MIDWEST, N.A.,
ARMED FORCES BANK, N.A.,
ACADEMY BANK, N.A., ARMED
FORCES BANK OF CALIFORNIA,
N.A., SOUTHERN COMMERCE
BANK, N.A., SUNBANK, N.A., and
FISERV, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike or, in the
alternative, Motion for Leave to File Reply. (Doc. 63). On October 9, 2014, the
Court held a hearing on Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss. During the
course of the proceedings, the Court inquired about Plaintiff’s claim that
Defendant SunBank charged fees on Plaintiff’s deposits and asked Plaintiff to
provide an illustration. At the time, Plaintiff was unable to produce a bank
statement that demonstrated an instance where SunBank assessed a fee on a
deposit made by Plaintiff. Out of interest about how Plaintiff arrived at this
particular allegation, the Court requested that Plaintiff provide a brief submission

to the Court further illuminating the fees on deposit claim along with sample
account statements highlighting particular occasions when these fees transpired.
The Court granted Defendants the opportunity to reply.
On October 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Submission, consisting of a
six page memorandum and seventy-nine pages of account statements. In his
submission, Plaintiff set out to explain not only the allegation that SunBank
charged fees on deposit but also identified instances when the bank charged
fees against Plaintiff’s account on other occasions.
In response, Defendants filed a fifteen page brief, the majority of which
was dedicated to responding to the matter of fees on deposit. Defendants also
briefly addressed several other issues that arose during the course of the
hearing, including several cases previously uncited by Plaintiff pertaining to
certain applicable statutes of limitation and the matter of whether one of the
named Defendants, Bank Midwest, N.A., had either been properly served or had
acknowledged service. Defendants then briefly reiterated their overall position on
the outstanding motions to dismiss.
Plaintiff now moves to strike Defendants’ response or, in the alternative, for
leave to file a reply. Plaintiff attempts to characterize Defendants’ response brief
as an impermissible sur-reply brief, for which Defendants did not obtain leave to
file as required by Local Rule 7.3.1 and argues that the Court should not consider
Defendants’ response. The Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s assessment of
2

Defendant’s submission as being so wildly outside the scope of either Plaintiff’s
memorandum or the confines of the issues presented at the hearing that the
Court now should strike Defendant’s brief. At the conclusion of the hearing on
Defendants’ motions to dismiss, the Court requested additional information from
Plaintiff to satisfy a question of fact. Between the original submission requested
by the Court and now Plaintiff’s pending motion, the Court has been provided
with sufficient information on all matters. No further briefing is necessary, nor
does the Court find that additional argument would be helpful in resolving the
pending motions to dismiss.
As a result of this determination, Plaintiff’s [63] Motion to Strike, Motion to
File Reply is hereby denied.
SO ORDERED this 13th day of November, 2014.

s/ Hugh Lawson_______________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
aks

3