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 i n 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 pla intiff, 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)

Download PDF
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

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?