Preferred Capital Lending, Inc. et al v. Chakwin, Jr. et al
Filing
47
ORDER STRIKING 42 Plaintiffs' Surreply. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 8/8/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
4
Preferred Capital Lending, Inc., et al.,
5
6
7
8
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Stephen D. Chakwin, Jr.,
Defendant.
9
10
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 2:13-cv-00368-GMN-NJK
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Stephen Chakwin, Jr.’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’
11
Improper Supplemental Reply (ECF No. 43), Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support thereof (ECF
12
No. 44), Defendant’s Response (ECF No. 45) and Plaintiffs’ Reply (ECF No. 46).
13
Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Improper Supplemental Reply (ECF No. 43)
14
and Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support (ECF No. 44) claims that the Plaintiffs filed an
15
untimely Surreply (ECF No. 42) in violation of Local Rule 7-2(e) which sets the deadlines for
16
filing responses and does not permit the filing unless leave of Court is sought. Local Rule 7-2.
17
Further, Defendant Chakwin claims that Plaintiffs impermissibly seek to introduce new
18
argument referencing Illinois law or to introduce new evidence not provided during discovery.
19
(ECF No. 44, at 4). Plaintiffs argue that their Surreply was a proper supplement to their
20
Opposition to Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 45, at 2). For the
21
reasons provided below, the Court agrees with Defendant Chakwin that Plaintiffs’ filing is
22
procedurally improper.
23
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 26) and Defendant filed an
24
Opposition (ECF No. 33) which stated in the title that it also included arguments in support of
25
Defendant’s separately filed Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 31). Plaintiffs
Page 1 of 2
1
filed a Reply (ECF No. 40) to Defendant’s Opposition to its Motion for Summary Judgment
2
stating in the title that this filing was also an Opposition to Defendant’s Cross-Motion for
3
Summary Judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiffs had a full and complete chance to reply to
4
Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and also to oppose the
5
Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and indeed, did so. (See ECF No. 40).
6
Thereafter, a Settlement Conference was held but no settlement was reached, and a few days
7
later Plaintiffs filed their Supplemental Reply (ECF No. 42) which the Court finds was
8
untimely and without leave of court, in violation of Local Rule 7-2. Therefore, Plaintiffs’
9
Surreply (ECF No. 42) shall be stricken from the docket and will be excluded from the Court’s
10
11
consideration.
The parties are strongly discouraged from filing combined documents and are urged to
12
file each motion, opposition, cross-motion and reply as a separate filing so it will be assigned a
13
different docket entry number to avoid confusion. Likewise, Defendant is advised that it is not
14
the practice in this district to file a Notice of Motion and then a separate Memorandum of
15
Points and Authorities. It is preferred that each motion contain points and authorities and
16
exhibits filed together as one document, such that each will be assigned only one docket entry
17
number. Following this practice may avoid future confusion, delay, and waste of both
18
counsels’ time and judicial resources.
19
20
21
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Surreply (ECF No. 42) shall be
STRICKEN and is hereby excluded from consideration.
DATED this 8th day of August, 2014.
22
23
24
___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court
25
Page 2 of 2
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?