Lafayette Life Insurance Company The et al v. Menasha City of Wisconsin et al

Filing 113

OPINION AND ORDER denying 109 Motion for Leave to File sur-reply in opposition to defendant City of Menasha's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 11/3/10. (csi) Modified on 11/3/2010 (csi). edited text

-APR Lafayette Life Insurance Company The et al v. Menasha City of Wisconsin et al

Doc. 113

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION THE LAFAYETTE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, MERCY RIDGE, INC., AMERICAN BANK, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF MENASHA, WISCONSIN, MENASHA UTILITIES, MENASHA STEAM UTILITY, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 4:09 cv 64

OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the Motion for Leave to File a Sur-reply in Opposition to Defendant City of Menasha's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [DE 109] filed by the lead plaintiffs on October 11, 2010. Local Rule 7.1(a) permits parties to file an initiating brief, a response, and a reply, but does not contemplate the filing of a surreply or response to the reply brief. The court

generally does not permit litigants to file a surreply brief. Hall v. Forest River, Inc., 2008 WL 1774216, *n.3 (N.D. Ind. April 15, 2008); Runkle v. United States, 1995 WL 452975, *1 (N.D. Ind. May 9, 1995). However, "[a] surreply brief is occa-

sionally allowed when it raises or responds to some new issue or development in the law." Merril Lynch Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln

Dockets.Justia.com

Nat. Life Ins. Co., 2009 WL 3762974, *1 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 9, 2009) (citing Hall, 2008 WL 1774216 at *n.3). The court's decision to

permit or deny a surreply brief is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. (7th Cir. 1994). In its motion, the plaintiffs do not argue that they need to address new arguments that the defendant raised in its reply brief or to present substantive changes in the law. Rather, the Cleveland v. Porca Co., 38 F.3d 289, 297

plaintiffs state that they "wish to address certain arguments." On review of the plaintiffs' surreply that was submitted as an exhibit to the plaintiffs' motion, the plaintiffs did not address any matters that could not have been raised in their response brief. The plaintiffs' surreply is another attempt to point to

the weaknesses in the defendant's brief, and ignores that it is the court's duty to weigh the arguments, distinguish cases, and apply the law. Because the plaintiffs have not provided any

justification for their request to file a surreply, the Motion for Leave to File a Sur-reply in Opposition to Defendant City of Menasha's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [DE 109] filed by the lead plaintiffs on October 11, 2010, is DENIED. ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2010

s/ Andrew P. Rodovich United States Magistrate Judge 2

3