Thomas et al v. Firerock Products,LLC et al

Filing 201

ORDER STRIKING re 191 MOTION for Summary Judgment (No Warranty by Fire Rock Products, LLC (Corrected) filed by Firerock Products,LLC, 195 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Limited Warranty) filed by Firerock Products,LLC, [116 ] MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Against Plaintiffs - Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose filed by General Shale Brick, Inc., 86 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Murphey Plaintiffs' Claims - Prior Release) filed by Firerock Products,LLC, 71 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for Particular Purpose) filed by Firerock Products,LLC, 78 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Against Plaintiffs Carole Murphey and Smith Murphey filed by General Shale Brick, Inc., 99 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act) filed by Firerock Products,LLC, 187 MOTION for Partial S ummary Judgment (Punitive Damages) filed by Firerock Products,LLC, 114 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Against Plaintiffs - Express Warranty Claim filed by General Shale Brick, Inc., 145 MOTION for Partial Summary Jud gment (Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability) filed by Firerock Products,LLC, Motions terminated: 148 MOTION to Intervene for the Limited Purpose of Requesting Jury Interrogatories or Verdict Form filed by Selective W ay Insurance Company, 187 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Punitive Damages) filed by Firerock Products,LLC, 99 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act) filed by Firerock Products,L LC, 71 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for Particular Purpose) filed by Firerock Products,LLC, 191 MOTION for Summary Judgment (No Warranty by Fire Rock Products, LLC (Corrected) fi led by Firerock Products,LLC, 78 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Against Plaintiffs Carole Murphey and Smith Murphey filed by General Shale Brick, Inc., 145 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Breach of Implied Warranty o f Merchantability) filed by Firerock Products,LLC, 116 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Against Plaintiffs - Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose filed by General Shale Brick, Inc., 195 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Limited Warranty) filed by Firerock Products,LLC, 193 MOTION for Sanctions (Service of False Discovery Response) filed by Firerock Products,LLC, 86 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Murphey Plainti ffs' Claims - Prior Release) filed by Firerock Products,LLC, 114 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Against Plaintiffs - Express Warranty Claim filed by General Shale Brick, Inc... Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 10/14/14. (tab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION

AMY THOMAS; JOHN THOMAS;
CAROLE MURPHEY; and SMITH
MURPHEY
V.

PLAINTIFFS

NO. 3:13-CV-00109-DMB-JMV

FIREROCK PRODUCTS, LLC; and
GENERAL SHALE BRICK, INC.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER STRIKING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Local Rule 7(b)(5), a “[m]ovant’s original and rebuttal memorandum briefs
together may not exceed a total of thirty-five pages.”
To date, Defendant Fire Rock Products has filed seven motions for partial summary
judgment. Docs. #71, #86, #99, #145, #187, #191, #195. Taken together, the memorandum
briefs, statements of material facts,1 and reply briefs, filed in support of Fire Rock Products’
motions for partial summary judgment exceed sixty pages.
Defendant General Shale Brick, in turn, has filed three motions for partial summary
judgment. Docs. #78, #114, #116. Taken together, the memorandum briefs, statements of
material facts, and reply briefs, filed in support of General Shale Brick’s motions for partial
summary judgment exceed fifty pages. Neither Defendant has sought leave of this Court to
exceed the page limit set by Local Rule 7(b)(5).
Page limits are “circumvented when a party distributes its separate but related contentions
and legal challenges over several dispositive motions, each of which is accompanied by a brief

1

The Local Rules of this Court do not provide for the filing of a separate statement of material facts in support of a
motion for summary judgment.

that approaches the … page limit.” Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc., No. 06-13345, 2007 WL
1647878, at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 4, 2007);2 see also Rainbow Nails Enters., Inc. v. Maybelline,
Inc., 93 F. Supp. 2d 808, 810 n.1 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (noting that “filing [of] separate motions
addressing only certain counts of Plaintiff’s Complaint” was effort “to create the illusion of
compliance with the Local Rules”). Where a party seeks to circumvent a page-limit by filing
multiple dispositive motions, the proper course is to strike the motions and direct the filing of “a
single consolidated motion and brief in support, combining all … arguments in a single filing.”
PHD, Inc., 2007 WL 1647878, at *1. This practice is justified by the fact that “a single filing,
even if somewhat over the … page limit, is vastly preferable to a profligacy of motions-which …
invariably triggers multiple responses and replies, supported by escalating rounds of overlapping
arguments and duplicative exhibits.” Id.
Accordingly, the Court will STRIKE all pending motions for summary judgment [71,
78, 86, 99, 114, 116, 145, 187, 191, 195]. The defendants shall each have twenty-one (21) days
from the entry of this order to file one motion for summary judgment per party. Plaintiffs shall
have fourteen days to respond to each motion for summary judgment. Defendants shall have ten
days to reply to each response.
In submitting their documents, the parties shall be granted leave to exceed the relevant
page limits by five pages each. Accordingly, each defendant may submit up to forty pages of
briefing in support of their motions for summary judgment. Likewise, Plaintiff may submit

2

The Eastern District of Michigan’s Local Rules expressly prohibit “[a]ttempts to circumvent the [local rule] in any
way.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1. While the Local Rules of this Court do not contain a similar express prohibition, the
Court concludes that the page-limit requirement of this jurisdiction implicitly prohibits attempts to circumvent its
mandate. To hold otherwise and allow for the filing of unlimited piece-meal motions would be to eviscerate the
stated purpose of the Local Rules to “make a fair and efficient court system ….” L.U. Civ. R. 1(c) (emphasis
added).

memorandum briefs, up to forty pages in length each, in opposition to each motion for summary
judgment.

SO ORDERED, this the 14th day of October, 2014.
/s/ Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE