Lewis v. Allen et al

Filing 109

ORDER GRANTING 94 and 97 Motions to Strike. ORDERED that the Clerk shall STRIKE following two documents: (1) # 83 P's continuation of opposition to Ds' motion to dismiss; and (2) # 89 P's opposition to Ds' partial motion to dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 11/9/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

ANTHONY LEWIS,
Plaintiff,

3:10-CV-0083-RCJ (VPC)

vs.

MINUTES OF THE COURT

J. ALLEN et al.,

Date: November 9, 2011

Defendants.
/
PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE
DEPUTY CLERK:

VALERIE P. COOKE , UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
LISA MANN

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF:

REPORTER:

NONE APPEARING

NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:

NONE APPEARING
XXX

Before the Court are two motions. Each is addressed in turn.
1.

Defendants’ Motion to Strike (#94) Plaintiff’s “Continuation of Opposition
to Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss” #83

Defendants’ motion to dismiss was fully briefed pursuant to Local Rule 7-2. Nevertheless,
plaintiff subsequently filed a document styled, “continuation of opposition to defendants’ partial
motion to dismiss (#83). This drew defendants’ motion to strike (#94), which plaintiff did not
oppose. Defendants’ motion is granted because (1) the Court did not give plaintiff leave to file a
supplemental points and authorities, and (2) plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion to strike is
deemed consent to the motion. Local Rule 7-2(d).

2.

Defendants’ Motion to Strike, Motion for Stay, and Motion for Protective Order
Against Further Frivolous and Improper Motions and Filings (#97)

Defendants filed this consolidated motion, which seeks relief on three separate matters.1 This
Court earlier granted defendants’ motion to stay plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment or crossmotion for summary judgment as more fully set forth in its Order (#101). This Court also denied
without prejudice defendants’ motion for protective order. Id. Therefore, the only issue that remains
is the following motion.
A.

Defendants’ Motion to Strike (#97) Opposition to Defendants’ Partial
Motion to Dismiss #89

Defendants move to strike a document entitled “plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion
to dismiss.2 Plaintiff opposed (#89). As stated above, defendants’ motion to dismiss was fully
briefed, and the plaintiff did not seek leave of Court to file supplemental points and authorities.
Defendants’ motion to strike docket number 89 is granted.
Based upon the foregoing, and for good cause appearing, defendants’ motion to strike (#94)
is GRANTED, and defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s opposition to partial motion to dismiss
(#97) is GRANTED.
IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall STRIKE following two documents: (1) #83 plaintiff’s
continuation of opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss; and (2) #89 plaintiff’s opposition to
defendants’ partial motion to dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk

While the Court appreciates that defendants are attempting to address plaintiff’s numerous
motions, it confuses the record to consolidate motions. Defendants’ counsel is asked to file separate
motions in the future.
1

Defendants refer to plaintiff’s opposition as docket number 90; however, the Clerk of Court
docketed the opposition as docket number 89 because plaintiff consolidated both a motion and
opposition in one document. The Clerk of Court designated two docket numbers to clarify that these
are two separate documents.
2

2