Wiemer v. Rubino et al
ORDER striking 120 Motion to Dismiss; striking 122 Motion for Summary Judgment; striking 124 Motion for Summary Judgment; striking 126 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; striking 128 Motion to Dismiss; striking 130 Motion for Summary Judgment; striking 132 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 8/18/17 (Whitsitt, K)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ROBERT WIEMER, MD
CAUSE NO. 1:16CV99-LG-RHW
DENISE RUBINO, ET AL.
ORDER STRIKING MULTIPLE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the seven
dispositive motions recently filed by the plaintiff, seeking dismissal of counterclaims
filed by Defendant Rubino. [ECF Nos. 120, 122, 124, 126, 128, 130, 132]. The seven
motions are accompanied by eighty-four pages of briefing. 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.” In his initial briefing, the plaintiff has already
filed twice the number of pages allowed for his original and rebuttal memorandum
together. The plaintiff did not seek leave of this Court to exceed the page limit set
by Local Rule 7(b)(5).
The Court finds that the filings are an attempt to circumvent the page
limitations set forth in the local rules. See Harvey v. Caesars Entm’t Operating Co.,
Inc., No. 2:11CV194-NBB-SAA, 2014 WL 12656553, at *3 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 22, 2014).
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 that approaches the . . . page limit.” Thomas v. Firerock
Prod., LLC, No. 3:13CV109-DMB-JMV, 2014 WL 12541627, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Oct.
14, 2014) (quoting Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc., No. 06-13345, 2007 WL 1647878,
at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 4, 2007) and citing Rainbow Nails Enters., Inc. v. Maybelline,
Inc., 93 F. Supp. 2d 808, 810 n.1 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (noting that filing separate
motions addressing only certain counts of the 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.’” Thomas, 2014 WL 12541627, at *1 (quoting Welker Bearing Co., 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.
Enforcement of the local rules by striking non-complying filings is a matter within
the Court’s discretion. See United States v. Rios-Espinoza, 591 F.3d 758, 760 (5th
The Court will therefore strike all pending dispositive motions filed by the
plaintiff [120, 122, 124, 126, 128, 130, 132]. The plaintiff shall have twenty-one days
from the entry of this Order to file one dispositive motion addressing all of his
grounds for dismissal. The response and reply shall be filed within the time allowed
by the Local Rules. If any party believes it is unable to adequately brief the issues
within the page limitations of Local Rule 7(b)(5), the party shall seek leave of Court
prior to filing memorandum briefs exceeding the limitations.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the dispositive
motions filed by the plaintiff [120, 122, 124, 126, 128, 130, 132] are hereby
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the plaintiff is
granted twenty-one days from the entry of this Order to file one salient dispositive
motion and supporting brief.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 18th day of August 2017.
Louis Guirola, Jr.
Louis Guirola, Jr.
Chief U.S. District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?