Keen v. Judicial Alternatives of Georgia, Inc.

Filing 45

ORDER denying 42 Motion to Strike. Further ordered that a hearing for oral argument is scheduled for July 27, 2015, at 11:00a.m., in Courtroom II, in Augusta, GA. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 7/8/15. (cmr)

ORIGINAL
IN THE ITNITED STATES DISTRTCT COURT FOR
SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBI,IN DIVISION

PHfLfP KEEN, ,JR.,
persons
similarly

-8
zf,tJUL Pil

other
and all
s i tuated,

Plaintiff,
CIVIL
\-V

.JUDICIA], ALTERNATIVES
GEORGIA. INC.

ACTION NO.

JJ-5_UJU

OF

Defendant.

ORDER

28,

On Apri]

filed

Plaintiff
on

filed

Inc.,

Georgia,

June

2015,

24,

,Judiciaf

and Defendant

2015.

days

Eight

wil-l- refer

1)

sur-rep1y

to as the

2\

the

Plaintiff

and did

sur-rep]y

Defendant's
"flagrantly

did

not

no!

as

incorrect.."

=.l/lraac

f ha

\\F l -^r^nf

of his

wel-1

of

l w

to

file

i ncorrer.f

,,

to

fife

a

to do so; and

beyond

as

its

cour!

on two

intenE

the

information

(Doc. No. 42, aE 2.)

DefendanL seeks permissj-on
r-^

tso Dismiss. " which

the sur-rep1y

seek leave

new argument

brief

brief

sur-replv-

notice

fife

contains

reply

of

f j"Led a

Plaintiff

to Motion

in Opposition

a reply

filed

1aLer,

Present.l-y, Defendant moves to st.rike
grounds:

Alternatives

a motion to dismiss the captioned matter.

a response/

"SurrebuELal- Brief
the Court

Defendant

that

is

ALternatively,

own surrebuttal
i.f

scope of

OrmatiOn.

brief

Because oral- arqument. may aid
this

matter,

appear for

IS

IT

ORDEREDthat

a hearing

Courthouse,

Federal

Because

the

Court

relevant

Lo the

every
for

will
to

information

l-2 (b) (5) motion,

are

as one for

summary judgment

by the

outside

counsel

statements

of

alleged

in

the pleadings

support

of or in opposition

substantiation

t

for

is

at

under
Lhe

oraf

is

the

"f ]agrantly

and will

have

any request

if,

on a Rufe

are presented

mot' j-on must be Lreated
Fed. R. Civ.

55.

pleadings

may

raising

and "any vrritten
Lo the pleading

and does not merefy

Moreover,

DENIED.

that

Rule

argument

Defendant's

hearing,

the

the

on July

informaLion

brief

reminded

court.

case

ceorgia.

DENfED.I

matE.ers outsside the pleadings

excluded

Matters

or

that. time,

party

by either

Eo and not

12 (d) .

Augusta,

surrebuttalat

this

to dismiss

have addressed

to

parties

the

at

of

of the Unj-ted States

at

sur-repfy

in its

briefing

addilional

in

argument

dismiss

t.o do so again

opporlunity

Finally.

any

hear

appears

because Defendant
incorrect"

Center,

Plaintiff's

mot.ion to sLrike

motion

in Courtroom II

Justice

motlon

parties

the

on Defendant's

27, 20L5, aL 1l-:00 a.m.,

in resolution

the Court

include

reiteraEe

both

new facts

or oral
that

P.

not

evidence

provides
what is

in

some
said

fn response
to
Ehe motion
Co strike,
PLaintiff
buttresses
his filing
of a sur-reply
with reference
to oEher
cases in this distri-cts that have all-owed sur-rep1ies.
As an
aside, the Court agrees that sur-replies
are not prohibitsed by
the rules of this Court.

in

pleadings.

the

187 F.3d

Inc.,

see Hamm v.

"

Rhone-Poulenc

Gibbs v.

1982), and citing

958 F.2d 814, 8l-6 (8th cir.

scot!,

smith v.

Ass'n,

500 F.2d

Local No, 25- SheeL Metal Workers Internat'l
74L, 744 (5'h cir.
order

converted

as automatical"Ly

courL rel-ied

the districE
including

oral

D

Prcr.-LrlLr!!

converting
Clark

v.

(M.D.

m'al-l-arq

to hear

and satisfy
the

(1i-rhCir.

case. "'

l-990) (quoting

4!2-L3

(5th cir,

on the

court's

subject

che

pleadings,

considered.

such

July,

2 015 .

Moreover,

is

free

the exist.ence
Dunbar,

Tucker,

to weigh t.he
j.ts power

of

]-525, ].529

545 F.2d 404,

rndeed, in resol-ving a factuaf
matt.er jurisdiction,

as

testimony

and

Augusta,

Georgia.

matters

affidavits,

this

with

such as a

9I9 F.2d

Id.

ORDER ENTERED at

Without

jurisdiction,

Wj-l-liamson v.

1981)) .

the

summary judgment.

one for

court

as !o
v.

Lo

recol.d

omit.ted)

trial-

lawrence

cent.raf

nu r ,h l j g
rr
v

court's

"'the
itself

or

may consider

174 F. Supp. l-369, L370-7f

sources

on a district

chal-lenge to standing,
evidence

into

Bd. of Educ.,

2001-) (cited

courts

said,

nf

the pl-eadings,

ou!side

complaint.

to dismiss

Bibb Cntv.

attacks

That

the

^nd

ucr>E

a motion

Ga.

factual

to

summary j udgment because

into

on materials

argument)) .

att.ached

documenEs

(
a Rule 1"2 b) (6) dismissaf

(treating

1974)

Pharm. ,

1-999) (guoting

(8'" Cir.

941-, 948

Rorer

atLack
outside
may be

6;",