Lasko v. American Board of Surgery, Inc. et al
Filing
60
ORDER Granting 59 Defendants' Motion to Strike 55 Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Dismiss or to Change Venue to Their Bailiwick. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 55 Plaintiffs second response to the Motion to Dismiss is STRICKEN. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 01/27/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
KEITH ALAN LASKO,
8
Plaintiffs,
9
vs.
10
AMERICAN BOARD OF SURGERY, et al.,
11
12
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:13-cv-01893-JAD-NJK
ORDER
13
14
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’
15
Motion to Dismiss or to Change Venue to Their Bailiwick, Docket No. 59.
16
I.
17
BACKGROUND
On November 27, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint,
18
or Alternatively, to Transfer Venue (“Motion to Dismiss”). Docket No. 43. Thereafter, on
19
December 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Docket No. 48. On
20
December 17, 2013, Defendants filed their reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss. Docket
21
No. 49. Then, on December 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed a second response to the Motion to Dismiss.
22
Docket No. 55. In the instant motion, Defendants request that the Court strike Plaintiff’s second
23
response to the Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that it is untimely and improper under the
24
Federal Rules.
25
.II.
26
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff filed his second response to the Motion to Dismiss 30 days after Defendants filed
27
the Motion to Dismiss. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(b), points and authorities in response to a
28
motion must be filed 14 days after service of the original motion. LR 7-2. Further, the docket
entry for Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss clearly states: “ Responses due by 12/14/2013.” Docket
1
No. 43. Thus, Plaintiff’s response filed on December 27, 2013, was approximately 2 weeks late
2
and untimely under the Local Rules.
3
Additionally, if Plaintiff intended for his second response to be a surreply, it is also
4
improper. Local Rule 7–2(a)–(c) allows a motion, a response and a reply. No provision is made
5
for the filing of a surreply. “A surreply may only be filed by leave of court, and only to address
6
new matters raised in a reply to which a party would otherwise be unable to respond.”
7
Spartalian v. Citibank, N.A., 2013 WL 593350, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2013) (citing Kanvick v.
8
City of Reno, 2008 WL 873085, at *n.1 (D.Nev. March 27, 2008)(emphasis in original)). Here,
9
Plaintiff did not request leave to file a surreply nor are there new matters raised in the reply to
10
which Plaintiff would otherwise be unable to response. Accordingly, even if Plaintiff intended
11
his second response to be a surreply, it is improper.
12
CONCLUSION
13
Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore,
14
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Response to
15
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or to Change Venue to Their Bailiwick, Docket No. 59, is
16
GRANTED.
17
18
19
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second response to the Motion to Dismiss,
Docket No. 55, is STRICKEN.
DATED: January 27, 2014.
20
21
22
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
-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?