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)

Download PDF
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?