Bussing v. Legent Clearing, LLC et al

Filing 90

ORDER denying Defendant's Motion to Strike #86 regarding Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Argument Related to Plaintiff's Objections #85 . The defendants have also requested that they be permitted to respond to the arguments raised in the SEC's brief and to provide the Court with opposing briefs or filings from Liu or other similar cases. This request is reasonable and will be granted. The defendants may respond, in this limited fashion, on or before April 14, 2014. The plaintiff, in turn, requests that she be allowed to submit a reply brief. Filing #88 . The Court does not believe that any more briefing will be particularly helpful, and so that request is denied. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard.(JAB) Modified on 4/4/2014 to remove reference to pro se party. (JAB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JULIE A. BUSSING,
Plaintiff,

8:12-CV-238

vs.
ORDER
COR CLEARING, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the defendants' motion to strike (filing 86).
The defendants ask the Court to strike the plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental
Argument Related to Plaintiff's Objections. Filing 85. In her notice, the plaintiff
attached a copy of an appellate amicus brief submitted by the Securities and Exchange
Commission in a case pending before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See
Meng-Lin Liu v. Siemens A.G., 2013 WL 5692504 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2013), appeal
docketed, No. 13-4385 (2d Cir. Nov. 14 2013). That brief addresses issues of statutory
interpretation raised by the motions pending before this Court. Filings 26, 63, 70, 74,
76. The Court has considered the brief and finds it relevant to the matter under
consideration. The defendants' motion to strike will therefore be denied.
The defendants have also requested that they be permitted to respond to the
arguments raised in the SEC's brief and to provide the Court with opposing briefs or
filings from Liu or other similar cases. This request is reasonable and will be granted.
The defendants may respond, in this limited fashion. The plaintiff, in turn, requests
that she be allowed to submit a reply brief. Filing 88. The Court does not believe that
any more briefing will be particularly helpful, and so that request is denied.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The defendants' motion to strike (filing 86) is denied.

2.

The defendants may offer a limited response to the plaintiff's
Notice of Supplemental Argument, as set forth above. The
defendants shall provide any such response on or before April 14,
2014.

Dated this 4th day of April, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge