Jarvis v. Circle K Stores et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying 62 Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Request to Reply to Defendant's Answer and Affirmative Defenses. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 5/14/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JACQUELINE Y. JARVIS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

13-825-JWD-RLB

CIRCLE K STORES, INC., ELYDIA
POYDRAS, AND CRAIG STEVENS
ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff Jacqueline Y. Jarvis’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Order
Denying Request to Reply to Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses” (R. Doc. 62). The
motion is opposed. (R. Doc. 64).
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of an order dated March 10, 2015 (R. Doc. 61)
denying Plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend and Supplement Complaint” (R. Doc. 55) and “Motion to
Amend Filing and Extension of Time in Which to Reply” (R. Doc. 56). Through those filings,
Plaintiff purported to amend and supplement her complaint, but submitted a proposed pleading
titled “Reply to Circle K Stores, Inc.’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Amended
and Supplemental Complaint” (R. Doc. 56-1). The court denied Plaintiff’s motions regardless
of whether they sought leave to amend the complaint (despite the expiration of the deadline to
amend), or leave to file a reply to an answer. (R. Doc. 61 at 2).
In support of her instant motion, Plaintiff makes it clear that she is/was seeking leave to
file a reply to Defendants’ Answer pursuant to Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff argues that she should be allowed file such a reply in light of the pleading standards in
Rule 8(a)(2) as discussed in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

The court disagrees. For the same reasons previously provided, the court finds no
grounds for ordering, or otherwise allowing, Plaintiff to file a reply to Defendants’ answer in this
action. The court also finds no basis for reconsideration of that decision. Should the court
determine at a later date that the action would benefit from the filing of a reply to Defendants’
answer, it will issue the appropriate order pursuant to Rule 7(a)(7). Unless or until that occurs,
the filing of a reply to an answer is not permitted.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (R. Doc. 62) is DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on May 14, 2015.

S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE