Carter v. Fort Bend Independent School District et al

Filing 110

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 80 Defendant Richard L. Muller's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Amended Opposition to Defendant Richard L. Muller's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 83 Defendants Yolanda Humphrey and Perdue, Brandon, Fielder, Collins & Mott, LLP's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Amended Response to 15 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must STRIKE 65 Pla intiff's Amended Opposition to Richard L. Muller's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must STRIKE 66 Plaintiff's Amended Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 10/23/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6
GWEDOLYN CARTER,
7
8
9
10
11

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FORT BEND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
)
DISTRICT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:17-cv-01930-RFB-CWH
ORDER

12
13

Presently before the court is Defendant Richard L. Muller’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s

14

Amended Opposition to Defendant Richard L. Muller’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

15

P. 12 (ECF No. 80), filed on October 2, 2017. Plaintiff Gwendolyn Carter did not respond.

16

Also before the court is Defendants Yolanda Humphrey and Perdue, Brandon, Fielder,

17

Collins & Mott, LLP’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amended Response to #15 Motion to Dismiss

18

(ECF No. 83), filed on October 3, 2017. Plaintiff Gwendolyn Carter did not respond.

19

Defendant Muller moves to strike Plaintiff’s amended opposition (ECF No. 65) to his

20

motion to dismiss on the grounds that the court did not give Plaintiff permission to file a

21

supplemental brief or a surreply. Defendants Humphrey and Perdue, Brandon, Fielder, Collins &

22

Mott, LLP move to strike Plaintiff’s amended opposition (ECF No. 66) to their motion to dismiss

23

for the same reasons. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the motion to strike constitutes a consent to

24

the granting of the motions under Local Rule 7-2(d). Additionally, the court has read and

25

considered the motions and finds that the motions should be granted for the reasons stated in the

26

motions.

27
28

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Richard L. Muller’s Motion to Strike
Plaintiff’s Amended Opposition to Defendant Richard L. Muller’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to

1
2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (ECF No. 80) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Yolanda Humphrey and Perdue, Brandon,

3

Fielder, Collins & Mott, LLP’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amended Response to #15 Motion to

4

Dismiss (ECF No. 83) is GRANTED.

5
6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must STRIKE Plaintiff’s Amended
Opposition to Richard L. Muller’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (ECF No. 65).

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must STRIKE Plaintiff’s Amended

8

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for a More Definite

9

Statement (ECF No. 66).

10
11

DATED: October 23, 2017

12
13
14

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2