Bussing v. Legent Clearing, LLC et al
ORDER granting 55 Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Briefing. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (EJL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JULIE A. BUSSING,
COR CLEARING, LLC, COR
SECURITIES HOLDINGS, Inc.,
CARLOS P. SALAS, in their
Individual Capacities, and
CHRISTOPHER L. FRANKEL, in
their Individual Capacities,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL
Now before me is Julie A. Bussing’s motion for leave to submit additional
briefing in response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 55.) Bussing,
who filed her original complaint on July 9, 2012, (ECF No. 1), had been proceeding
pro se until April 5, 2013, when attorneys J. L. Spray and David M. Gaba entered
their appearances as counsel of record on her behalf, (ECF No. 54). The defendants
filed a motion to dismiss Bussing’s first amended complaint on August 30, 2012.
(ECF No. 26.) Since that date, and while acting pro se, Bussing filed four briefs in
opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, (ECF Nos. 28, 32, 38, 42), and a
second amended complaint, (ECF Nos. 33-34). Bussing’s briefs and her second
amended complaint have been accepted by the court. (E.g., ECF Nos. 41, 47.)1 Until
The parties do not suggest that the filing of the second amended complaint
rendered the defendants’ motion to dismiss moot.
recently, the latest brief associated with the defendants’ motion to dismiss was filed
in October 2012. (See ECF Nos. 46-47.) The motion to dismiss has not yet been
Shortly after entering their appearances on April 5, 2013, Bussing’s attorneys
moved for leave to file an additional response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
(Mot. for Leave at 1, ECF No. 55.) The defendants object to the plaintiff’s motion,
arguing that Bussing “has already had ample opportunity to submit briefing on all
issues with regard to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, both through her initial
opposition brief and through three supplemental filings.” (Defs.’ Response Br. at 1,
ECF No. 57. See also id. at 2-4.) They add that Bussing “cites no new controlling
case law in her request to file additional briefing,” nor has she identified any “new
issues or arguments that were not already addressed.” (Id. at 2. See also id. at 4, 5.)
In addition, the defendants submit that additional briefing would be “repetitive,”
“redundant,” and “futile,” and would “prejudice Defendants in terms of cost, delay,
and lack of finality as to the status of [the] litigation.” (Id. See also id. at 4-7.)
Finally, the defendants state that if Bussing’s motion is granted, the defendants
should be given leave to file a reply. (Id. at 7.)
Under the circumstances, it was prudent for Bussing’s attorneys to file their
motion swiftly. Moreover, because they have only recently entered their appearances,
I do not think it would be reasonable to require them to identify the substantive
arguments and relevant authority that might be included in their response. It remains
to be determined whether additional briefing will ultimately prove to be repetitive,
redundant, or futile. If so, I am not convinced that the defendants will be significantly
harmed by an additional delay. If not, the interests of justice will have been wellserved by the delay.
Bussing shall have 45 days from the date of this order within which to file a
brief in response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The defendants may file a
reply brief within seven days of the filing of Bussing’s brief. Any motion to amend
the complaint must also be filed within 45 days of the date of this order, and the
defendants may respond to any such motion in accordance with the applicable rules.
Bussing is hereby advised that the defendants’ motion to dismiss will be
deemed submitted, and I shall proceed to resolve it on the current record, if she fails
to act prior to the deadline specified above.
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to submit additional
briefing, (ECF No. 55), is granted.
Dated April 22, 2013.
BY THE COURT
Warren K. Urbom
United States Senior 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?