Copper Sands Homeowners Association, Inc. et al v. Copper Sands Realty, LLC et al

Filing 382

ORDER that Plaintiffs Emergency Motion to Strike Joinders 349 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/7/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

COPPER SANDS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,

5

Plaintiffs,
6
7

vs.
COPPER SANDS REALTY, LLC, et al.,

8

Defendants.
9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:10-cv-00510-GMN-GWF
ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Strike Joinders (ECF No. 349).

10
11

Specifically Plaintiffs ask the Court to Strike Joinders #343, 332, 334, 324, 326, 344, 327, 345,

12

325, 333 and 342. The joinder motions seek to join in arguments made by other Defendants in

13

their motions for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs argue that the joinders should be stricken because they were filed after the

14
15

dispositive motion deadline. The Court does not find this reason alone to be sufficient to strike

16

the joinders in full. Joinders to motions are commonly filed in federal practice and can

17

streamline judicial efficiency if arguments would otherwise be duplicative. So long as the

18

opposing party’s arguments remain consistent against the party seeking to join in the preexisting

19

motion, this is usually not a sufficient reason to deny the joinder.1 However, when new

20

arguments are raised there can be prejudice to the party having to respond to such motions.

21
22
1

23
24
25

This Court is also persuaded by the reasoning of a District of Hawaii case, U.S. v. Tropic Seas, Inc., 887 F.Supp. 1347
(D.Hawaii 1995).
The United States, joined by the Sallees, moves to strike the joinder of Defendant Thayer because Thayer
violated the Rule 16 scheduling conference order by filing a substantive motion without leave of court after
the motions deadline of February 8, 1995 (the Thayer's joinder was filed on February 23, 1995). This would
require a finding that the joinder was actually a motion. Although the joinder does make extensive argument
and includes evidence, technically it is not a motion. The court DENIES the motion to strike.
Id. at 1356 n. 10.

Page 1 of 2

1

In the instant case, some of the joinders were filed two weeks after the dispositive motion

2

deadline. Defendants do not give any reason why the Court should consider these late filed

3

joinders. To the extent the joinders add new arguments or present new evidence that places the

4

joining Defendant(s) in a different light than the Defendant(s) who originally filed the motion,

5

the Court will strike such new additional arguments and evidence and will not consider them in

6

rendering its decision.

7
8
9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Strike Joinders (ECF
No. 349) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as stated herein.
DATED this 7th day of March, 2012.

10
11
12
13

________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2