Hamidi v. City of Kirksville, Missouri et al

Filing 132

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Amir Hamidi's Motion to Strike Defendants' Reply [ECF No. 129 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Amir Hamidi is allowed to file what is in effect a sur-reply to Defendants' reply, and shall file this motion by October 12, 2016. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 10/5/2016. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION
AMIR HAMIDI,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF KIRKSVILLE, MISSOURI, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:14CV00087 ERW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Amir Hamidi’s Motion to Strike
Defendant’s Reply [ECF No. 129]. In his motion Plaintiff argues because Defendants’ Bill of
Costs [ECF No. 118] is not a motion, Defendants were not entitled to file their Reply in Support
of Memorandum in Support of Their Bill of Costs [ECF No. 124] in response to Plaintiff’s
Opposition to Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Their Bill of Costs. [ECF No. 122].
Accordingly, Plaintiff argues Defendants reply motion be struck, or in the alternative, the Court
allow Plaintiff to file a “reply” motion. Defendants respond to the extent Plaintiff’s motion was
mistitled; the Court should allow their reply motion to stand in substance regardless of how
Plaintiff’s opposition motion is styled. [ECF No. 131]. The Court rejects Plaintiff’s motion to
strike Defendants’ reply, but will allow Plaintiff the opportunity to file, what is in substance, a
sur-reply to the motion.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Amir Hamidi’s Motion to Strike Defendants’
Reply [ECF No. 129] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Amir Hamidi is allowed to file what is in
effect a sur-reply to Defendants’ reply, and shall file this motion by October 12, 2016.
Dated this 5th Day of October, 2016.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2