Baker v. Teamsters Local Union No. 120

Filing 34

ORDER granting 33 Motion to Strike 32 Reply to Response to 24 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by David J Baker. The court will not strike the Reply and will instead allow Baker to file a surreply. Baker must file his surreply by no later than 2/26/2016 and may only respond to Defendant's argument regarding the wrongful denial of ERISA benefits. Signed by Chief Judge Linda R Reade on 2/19/2016. (skm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
EASTERN DIVISION

DAVID J. BAKER,
Plaintiff,

No. 14-CV-1027-LRR

vs.

ORDER

TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO.
120,
Defendant.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO.
120,
Counter Claimant,
vs.
DAVID J. BAKER,
Counter Defendant.
____________________
The matter before the court is Plaintiff David J. Baker’s “Motion to Strike
Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment” (“Motion”) (docket no.
33), which Baker filed on February 16, 2016. In the Motion, Baker requests that the court
strike Defendant’s “Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment” (“Reply”) (docket no. 32) or, in the alternative, grant Baker leave
to file a surreply. Motion at 1. In the Motion, Baker argues that Defendant included a
new argument in the Reply that it did not include in its Motion for Summary Judgment
(docket no. 24). Motion at 1. In particular, in the Reply, Defendant argues that Baker has
failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to his claim that
“he was wrongfully denied benefits under ERISA when [Defendant] denied ‘his lifetime
benefits under the Plan.’” Reply at 9. Baker argues that the inclusion of this new

argument in the Reply, when it was not raised in the initial Motion for Summary
Judgment, is grounds to strike the Reply in its entirety. Brief in Support of the Motion
(docket no. 33-1) at 2 (citing Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co.,
255 F.R.D. 645, 649 n.1 (N.D. Iowa 2009) (collecting cases)); see also LR 7(g) (stating
that a moving party may file a reply “to assert newly-decided authority or to respond to
new and unanticipated arguments made in the resistance”).
Although the argument regarding whether Defendant improperly denied Baker
benefits under ERISA was not argued in Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, see
Brief in Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no 24-2) at 14-16, “striking
a party’s pleadings is an extreme measure, and, as a result, [the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals] ha[s] previously held that ‘[m]otions to strike . . . are viewed with disfavor and
are infrequently granted.’” Stanbury Law Firm v. I.R.S., 221 F.3d 1059, 1063 (8th Cir.
2000) (third alteration in original) (quoting Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d 221, 229
(8th Cir. 1977)). Therefore, the court will not strike the Reply and will instead allow
Baker to file a surreply. Baker must file his surreply by no later than February 26, 2016
and may only respond to Defendant’s argument regarding the wrongful denial of ERISA
benefits. Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 19th day of February, 2016.

2