CMI Roadbuilding, Inc v. Iowa Parts, Inc et al

Filing 155

ORDER denying 154 Motion to Strike 153 Supplement to 134 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Iowa Parts, Inc. The court shall permit Iowa Parts to file a sur reply. Such sur reply must not exceed five pages in length and must be filed by no later than 11/20/2017. The sur reply may only address those arguments which could not have been properly resisted due to the omitted page in CMI's brief in support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Linda R Reade on 11/15/2017. (skm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION

CMI ROADBUILDING, INC. and CMI
ROADBUILDING, LTD.,
Plaintiffs,

No. 16-CV-33-LRR

vs.

ORDER

IOWA PARTS, INC.,
Defendant.
____________________
The matter before the court is Defendant Iowa Parts, Inc.’s (“Iowa Parts”) “Motion
to Strike Errata to Plaintiff’s Brief” (“Motion”) (docket no. 154), which it filed on
November 3, 2017.

In the Motion, Iowa Parts requests that the court strike the

Supplement (docket no. 153) filed by Plaintiffs CMI Roadbuilding, Inc. and CMI
Roadbuilding, Ltd. (collectively, “CMI”) in support of their pending Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (docket no. 134). Iowa Parts argues that the Supplement presents
“facts and legal conclusions that were not previously raised,” was filed without leave of
court and in violation of the Local Rules, and thus argues that it would be “grossly unfair”
for the court to consider the Supplement. Motion at 1-2. The court is unimpressed by
Iowa Parts’s arguments. The Supplement does not attempt to cut new arguments and
factual allegations from whole cloth—it is instead meant to correct a clerical error made
by the omission of a single page of CMI’s brief in support of its Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment. The court refuses to strike the Supplement and thereby shackle itself
to attempt to rule on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on an incomplete record.
However, because Iowa Parts has not had the chance to respond to the arguments
contained on the inadvertently omitted page, the court shall permit it to file a sur reply.
Such sur reply must not exceed five pages in length and must be filed by no later than

November 20, 2017. The sur reply may only address those arguments which could not
have been properly resisted due to the omitted page in CMI’s brief in support of its Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 15th day of November, 2017.

2