Joseph et al vs. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police et al

Filing 116

ORDER GRANTING defendants motion to strike 115 the legal arguments set forth in plaintiffs motion for a telephonic hearing 114 which relate to the motion for summary judgment 73 . The court GRANTS that portion of plaintiffs motion 114 request ing a telephonic hearing on the motion for summary judgment 73 and schedules a telephonic hearing on the motion 73 on August 11, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 7/26/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

RONALD NEAL JOSEPH, SR.,
et al.

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE )
DEPARTMENT, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

2:09-cv-00966-HDM-LRL
ORDER

19
On July 22, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for telephonic
20
hearing (Docket No. 114) on defendants’ motion for summary judgment
21
(Docket No. 73).

On July 25, 2011, defendants filed a motion to

22
strike (Docket No. 115) plaintiffs’ motion for telephonic hearing
23
(Docket No. 114) on defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket
24
No. 73).

Plaintiffs’ motion for a telephonic hearing (Docket No.

25
114) is ripe.
26
Plaintiffs’ motion for a telephonic hearing (Docket No. 114)

1

is essentially a “sur-reply” to defendants’ motion for summary

2

judgment (Docket No. 73).

3

Local Rule 7-2 govern the filing of dispositive motions and

4

responsive pleadings.

5

motion, a response by the opposing party and a reply by the moving

6

party.

7

See Sattari v. CitiMortgage, 2011 WL 1103403, *2 (D.Nev. March 23,

8

2011) (citing Garrison v. Northeast Ga. Med. Ctr., Inc., 66 F.

9

Supp. 2d 1336, 1340 (N.D.Ga. 1999)).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

Local Rule 7-2 allows the filing of a

Sur-replies are not permitted without leave of the court.

Based on the foregoing,

10

defendants request that the court strike the legal arguments set

11

forth in plaintiffs’ motion for a telephonic hearing. (See Docket

12

No. 115)

13

The court hereby GRANTS defendants’ motion to strike (Docket

14

No. 115) the legal arguments set forth in plaintiffs’ motion for a

15

telephonic hearing (Docket No. 114) which relate to the motion for

16

summary judgment (Docket No. 73).

17

The court GRANTS that portion of plaintiffs’ motion (Docket

18

No. 114) requesting a telephonic hearing on the motion for summary

19

judgment (Docket No. 73) and schedules a telephonic hearing on the

20

motion (Docket No. 73) on August 11, 2011, at 10:00 a.m.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

DATED this 26th day of July, 2011.

23
24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26

2