GRAHAM v. MONMOUTH COUNTY BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS et al
Filing
155
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 142 Motion to Enforce Settlement; Defendant Robert Compton's 147 Motion for Leave to File a Surreply Brief; Monmouth County's 148 Motion for Leave to File a Surreply Brief; and Defendant K rzyzanowski's 150 Motion for Leave to File a Surreply Brief are DENIED as moot; Plaintiff's 149 and 151 Motions to Strike Compton's and Krzyzanowski's Motions for Leave to File Surreply Briefs are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 5/06/2020. (jem)
Case 3:16-cv-01578-PGS-LHG Document 155 Filed 05/07/20 Page 1 of 13 PageID: 3854
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
LUTHER GRAHAM,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No.:
3:16-cv-1578-PGS-LHG
MONMOUTH COUNTY BUILDINGS AND
GROUNDS, et al.,
Defendants.
SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement. (ECF No.
142). The putative settlement underlying this motion concerned two cases involving the same
parties and alleging employment discrimination. Although the putative settlement applied to both
cases, the cases were never consolidated. As a result, this motion is docketed in both files, and
this memorandum applies to both cases.
I.
This employment discrimination matter entails a retaliation claim brought by the Plaintiff,
Luther Graham, against Defendants, Monmouth County Division of Buildings and Grounds;
Robert W. Compton, Superintendent of the Buildings and Grounds Division; and David
Krzyzanowski, Supervisor of General Services for the Buildings and Grounds Division
(collectively, “Defendants”) 1.
1
Defendants Compton and Krzyzanowksi did not file opposition briefs.
1
Case 3:16-cv-01578-PGS-LHG Document 155 Filed 05/07/20 Page 2 of 13 PageID: 3855
Plaintiff was employed with the County from 1994 until his termination in June 20192.
The only issue remaining for trial in this case is whether Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff in
2016 by failing to hire him for a crew supervisor position within the County’s Buildings and
Grounds Division. (See Final Pretrial Order, ECF No. 94).
A jury trial was tentatively scheduled to begin on April 6, 2020. (See Order, ECF No. 122).
Accordingly, before trial was to commence, the Court had planned to hear oral argument on the
parties’ motions in limine as well as Defendants’ summary judgment motions on Wednesday,
March 11, 2020. Evidently, however, the parties had been engaged in settlement discussions
during the days leading up to the March 11 motions hearing.
According to the parties, on Friday, March 6, 2020, the parties participated in a day-long
mediation. (Pl.’s Mot. to Enforce Settlement, ECF No. 142-1); (Defs.’ Opp’n Br. 1, ECF No. 145).
Defendants allege that before the mediation began, the mediator explained the ground rules, one
of which was that any settlement agreement would have to be approved by the Board of Chosen
Freeholders of Monmouth County. (Declaration of Douglas J. Kovats ¶ 3, ECF No. 145-1).
Defendants also allege that before any settlement could be presented to the Board of Chosen
Freeholders, Defendants’ counsel was required to discuss any potential settlement with Monmouth
County Counsel, Michael Fitzgerald, Esq.3 (Defs.’ Opp’n Br. 1).
At the mediation, though the parties did not reach an agreement, Defendants conveyed an
offer to Graham, which was left open until the close of business the following Tuesday, March 10.
2
In the related case, Civil Action No. 19-cv-18763, which is still in its early pleading stages,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants retaliated and discriminated against him when they terminated
him in June 2019.
3
Mr. Fitzgerald is an attorney for the County, but is not counsel of record in these cases.
2
Case 3:16-cv-01578-PGS-LHG Document 155 Filed 05/07/20 Page 3 of 13 PageID: 3856
(See Pl.’s Mot.). Settlement discussions continued on Tuesday, March 10, and that evening the
parties reached a putative settlement agreement. (Defs.’ Opp’n Br. 1).
This putative agreement was memorialized in an email4 that Plaintiff’s counsel, Christine
E. Burke, Esq., sent that same evening to the County’s counsel, Douglas J. Kovats, Esq. In the
email, Ms. Burke mentioned the dollar amount Plaintiff would receive as a result of the settlement,
the logistics of how the money would be issued, and information concerning Plaintiff’s health
insurance and pension benefits. (Pl.’s Ex. A). Notably, Ms. Burke also wrote the following
sentence: “Please be advised when you think this will be submitted to the freeholders [Monmouth
County’s Board of Chosen Freeholders] for formal approval.” (Id.).
On the morning of Wednesday, March 11, 2020 (the following day), Ms. Burke notified
this Court’s Chambers that the motions hearing would not be necessary because the parties had
reached a possible settlement. Ms. Burke’s representation to the Court was also memorialized in
a letter to this Court filed that same morning and jointly on behalf of both parties:
I represent the Plaintiff in the above-referenced matters. I write jointly respecting
the current status of these cases. The Parties have reached a settlement in principal,
but are still in the process of discussing various items that need to be confirmed
before they can formalize an agreement. Therefore, the Parties respectfully request
the current oral argument(s) scheduled for this afternoon be adjourned. The parties
will submit a request for a 60 Day Order as soon as able. If Your Honor has any
questions or concerns related to this correspondence, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
(March 11, 2020 Letter to Court, ECF No. 140) (emphasis added).
Moreover, that same morning, Ms. Burke contacted the Chambers of Lois H. Goodman,
U.S.M.J., the magistrate judge assigned to the case. After a representative from Judge Goodman’s
Because the email contains confidential settlement information, Plaintiff’s motion to seal the
email was granted. (ECF No. 152). Still, the Court will discuss the contents of the email pertinent
to the disposition of Plaintiff’s present motion.
4
3
Case 3:16-cv-01578-PGS-LHG Document 155 Filed 05/07/20 Page 4 of 13 PageID: 3857
Chambers asked Ms. Burke about a possible settlement, Ms. Burke responded, via email, with the
following:
Ms. Fitzgerald,
Thank you for your email. Mr. Graham was a county employee, and therefore his
pension and continued health insurance benefits (upon retirement) are governed by
the County of Monmouth’s Employee Guide to Policies, Benefits and Services. I
was working with Defense Counsel to confirm his actual service date within the
County so that Mr. Graham has a full understanding of what benefits he is/is not
contractually entitled to going forward, and therefore any necessary carve out
language for the agreement . . . .
(Burke email to Goodman Chambers, Mar. 10, 2020, Pl.’s Ex. B, ECF No. 142-3).
Mr. Kovats also explained in an email to Judge Goodman’s Chambers that same morning
that “we [Defendants] are agreed on a global settlement of Mr. Graham’s claims against
Monmouth County and it’s [sic] employees . . . .” (Kovats email to Goodman Chambers, March
10, 2020, Pl.’s Ex. C, ECF No. 142-4).
Cautious about the prospect of a settlement, this Court arranged for a telephone conference
with the parties later that day (March 11). During the telephone conference, the parties informed
this Court that they had reached a tentative agreement, but were still working out a few items,
including health insurance payouts and approval by the Board of Chosen Freeholders:
MS. BURKE: I was speaking with Mr. Kovats before we got on the phone with the
Court, we’re waiting on information from the county regarding [Plaintiff’s] official
date of employment that would actually count toward his eligibility for health
insurance benefits under a particular plan. So that’s something that we need to
resolve so that there’s no debate about whether or not there’s a carve-out in the
agreement for his ability to seek health insurance benefits. And that’s what’s
holding things up, and also the freeholders have to approve any settlement and I
don’t know when that executive meeting will be held.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. KOVATS: Your Honor, as to those two issues, I anticipate that as to the first
issue I will have confirmation before the week is out; and as to the second issue
4
Case 3:16-cv-01578-PGS-LHG Document 155 Filed 05/07/20 Page 5 of 13 PageID: 3858
probably midway through next week. I believe -- my understanding is there’s going
to be an executive session upon which this topic can be discussed. I don’t anticipate
any difficulties in having the settlement approved, I just need to formally have them
[the Board of Chosen Freeholders] know it’s there so that they’re not surprised.
(Teleconference Transcript 4:4-24, March 11, 2020) (emphasis added).
Sometime after the telephone conference, the Board of Chosen Freeholders ultimately
declined to approve the settlement. On March 20, 2020, Mr. Kovats sent an email to Ms. Burke
as well as counsel for Defendants Compton and Krzyzanowski regarding same:
Good afternoon;
I have just concluded a telephone call with County Counsel Michael Fitzgerald . . .
County counsel advised that after meeting with the Monmouth County Freeholders,
the Freeholders rejected the settlement. As I had represented to you and the Court
it was not my understanding that the settlement would be rejected. I think it would
be best to advise the Court sooner rather than later. Even in light of this information
I expect that you will continue to want a response, I anticipate that receiving a
formal response to the Health Benefit question raised will take more time.
(Kovats email to counsel, March 20, 2020, Ex. D. to Pl.’s Surreply Br., ECF No. 154-1).
As indicated above, Mr. Kovats was confident that the Board of Chosen Freeholders would
approve the settlement; yet, according to Mr. Kovats, such approval was never a guarantee. (See
Kovats Decl. ¶ 5). Plaintiff filed the present motion to enforce what he perceived as a final
settlement among the parties.
II.
Courts treat a motion to enforce a settlement under the same standard as a motion for
summary judgment5, since “the central issue is whether there is any disputed issue of material fact
as to the validity of the settlement agreement.” G.I. Sportz, Inc. v. Valken, Inc., 1:16-cv-07170-
5
Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine
issue of material fact and the evidence establishes the moving party’s entitlement to judgment as
a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
5
Case 3:16-cv-01578-PGS-LHG Document 155 Filed 05/07/20 Page 6 of 13 PageID: 3859
NLH-KMW, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105317, at *5-6 (D.N.J. June 22, 2018) (citing Washington
v. Klem, 388 F. App’x 84, 85 (3d Cir. 2010)).
A settlement agreement is a contract like any other contract, and therefore breaches of
settlement obligations are governed by state contract law. Jacob’s Limousine Transp., Inc. v. City
of Newark, 688 F. App’x 150, 151 (2017); see Nolan v. Lee Ho, 120 N.J. 465, 472 (1990) (citation
omitted). Thus, an agreement settling a lawsuit may be considered a contract, absent fraud, duress,
or other considerations. Pote v. Pine Hill Mun. Utils. Ass’n, DOCKET NO. A-4639-11T2, 2013
N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1669, at *3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 5, 2013) (citing Pascarella
v. Bruck, 190 N.J. Super. 118, 124-25 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.), cert denied, 94 N.J. 600 (1983)).
Under New Jersey law, to prevail on a breach of contract claim, a party must prove (1) the
existence of valid contract between the parties, (2) the opposing party’s failure to perform a defined
obligation under the contract, and (3) the breach caused the claimant to sustain damages. SSC
Serv. Corp. v. Turen, Civ. No. 2:15-cv-4160-KM-MAH, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144881, at *21
(D.N.J. Aug. 27, 2018) (citing EnviroFinance Grp., LLC v. Envtl Barrier Co., LLC, 440 N.J.
Super. 325, 345 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2015)).
As such, a contract is formed where there is an offer and acceptance and terms sufficiently
definite that the performance to be rendered by each party can be ascertained with reasonable
certainty. G.I. Sportz, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105317, at *5; see Weichert Co. Realtors v. Ryan,
128 N.J. 427, 435 (1992). Furthermore, a contract is enforceable if the parties agree on essential
terms and manifest an intention to be bound by those terms. G.I. Sportz, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
105317, at *5; see United States v. Lightman, 988 F. Supp. 448, 458 (D.N.J. 1997). Under New
Jersey law, as long as the parties orally agree on the essential terms, a contract is formed; therefore,
a court can enforce an oral settlement agreement even if a writing never materializes. U.S. Sewer
6
Case 3:16-cv-01578-PGS-LHG Document 155 Filed 05/07/20 Page 7 of 13 PageID: 3860
& Drain, Inc. v. Earle Asphalt Co., Civil Action No. 15-1461 (AET), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
82792, at *21-22 (D.N.J. June 22, 2016) (citations omitted).
The party seeking to enforce the alleged settlement agreement bears the burden of proving
the existence of the agreement under contract law. G.I. Sportz, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105317, at
*5. A court must grant a motion to enforce a settlement agreement if it finds that a defendant
breached a duty created by a binding agreement and that the breach caused the plaintiff to suffer
damages. Jacob’s Limousine, 688 F. App’x at 151-52; see Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n Local
Union No. 27, AFL-CIO v. E.P. Donnelly, Inc., 737 F.3d 879, 900 (3d Cir. 2013).
Although New Jersey public policy favors settlement of litigation, see Nolan, 120 N.J. at
472, a settlement “should not be enforced where there appears to have been an absence of mutuality
of accord between the parties or their attorneys in some substantial particulars, or the stipulated
agreement is incomplete in some of its material and essential terms.” Fogarty v. Household Fin.
Corp. III, Civil No. 14-4525 (RBK/JS), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143551, at *8 (D.N.J.), adopted
by, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143187 (D.N.J. Aug. 22, 2018) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
III.
Moreover, under New Jersey law, “unless an attorney is specifically authorized by the
client to settle a case, the consent of the client is necessary.” G.I. Sportz, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
105317, at *8 (quoting Amatuzzo v. Kozmiuk, 305 N.J. Super. 469, 475 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
1997)). Settlement stipulations made by attorneys when acting within the scope of their authority
are enforceable against their clients. Jennings v. Reed, 381 N.J. Super. 217, 230 (N.J. Super. Ct.
App. Div. 2005). New Jersey law recognizes two types of authority to settle a lawsuit which would
bind a client: actual, either express or implied, and apparent authority. Burnett v. Cnty. of
Gloucester, 415 N.J. Super. 506, 513 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2010).
7
Case 3:16-cv-01578-PGS-LHG Document 155 Filed 05/07/20 Page 8 of 13 PageID: 3861
Further, in the context of a governmental body, “[g]overnmental bodies must act by formal
action not only with respect to contracts, but also as to giving consent to the settlement of
litigation.” Jersey City v. Roosevelt Stadium Marina, 210 N.J. Super. 315, 328 (N.J. Super. Ct.
App. Div. 1986) (internal citations omitted); see Petit-Clair v. Hoffman, Civ. No. 2:14-07082,
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101311, at *6 (D.N.J. June 29, 2017) (indicating that a municipal
government can only act by formal action at a public meeting, which includes consent to litigation
settlements); Advanced Enters. Recycling, Inc. v. Gloucester County Improvement Auth.,
DOCKET NO. A-2396-14T1, 2016 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1999, at *13 (N.J. Super. Ct. App.
Div. Aug. 31, 2016) (governmental bodies enter into contracts only “by formal action[.]”); see also
N.J. Stat. Ann. § 40A:5-17(a) (requiring that municipal and county governmental bodies must
approve payment of all claims).
When dealing with a governmental body in the context of a settlement, the parties “are
charged with knowledge of the law and the necessity for official public action.” Roosevelt Stadium
Marina, 210 N.J. Super. at 331.
IV.
In the instant case, because there are factual disputes regarding the validity of the alleged
settlement agreement, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. The conduct of the parties throughout
the settlement discussions fails to demonstrate that the parties reached a binding settlement.
First, there are factual disputes about whether there was a meeting of the minds among the
parties, as the parties had not yet agreed upon the essential terms of the agreement. For instance,
in Ms. Burke’s March 11, 2020 letter to this Court, she indicated that the parties had reached a
settlement “in principal”, but were still finalizing other terms of the settlement. (March 11, 2020
8
Case 3:16-cv-01578-PGS-LHG Document 155 Filed 05/07/20 Page 9 of 13 PageID: 3862
Letter to Court). Ms. Burke’s characterization of the agreement suggests that there remained
unresolved items that the parties needed to address before a settlement could be agreed upon.
Indeed, Ms. Burke indicated on separate occasions that the parties had not yet agreed on
the details of Plaintiff’s health insurance and pension distributions. For example, in Ms. Burke’s
email to Judge Goodman’s Chambers, she stated that the parties were still figuring out Plaintiff’s
eligibility for benefits, “and therefore any necessary carve out language for the agreement . . . .”
(Burke email to Goodman Chambers, March 10, 2020). Ms. Burke indicated same to this Court
during the teleconference, where she stated that the parties were “waiting on information from the
county regarding [Plaintiff’s] official date of employment that would actually count toward his
eligibility for health insurance benefits under a particular plan. So that’s something that we need
to resolve . . . And that’s what’s holding things up . . . .” (Teleconference Transcript 4:6-13).
Accordingly, the parties’ “stipulated agreement [was] incomplete in some of its material
and essential terms,” Fogarty, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143551, at *8, namely the health insurance
and pension benefits.
Second, even if the parties agreed on essential settlement terms, Defendants contend that
the parties still had not executed a binding settlement agreement because the parties expressly
understood that any proposed settlement was conditioned upon approval by the Board of Chosen
Freeholders of Monmouth County, and that the County’s counsel, Mr. Kovats, did not have
authority to settle the case. This Court agrees.
The Courts finds the Roosevelt Stadium Marina case, cited supra, instructive on this issue.
In that case, the City of Jersey City sued the defendants over alleged breaches of lease obligations
related to certain properties. Roosevelt Stadium Marina, 210 N.J. Super. at 318-19. Settlement
negotiations eventually ensued, and proposed drafts of a settlement agreement were exchanged.
9
Case 3:16-cv-01578-PGS-LHG Document 155 Filed 05/07/20 Page 10 of 13 PageID: 3863
Id. at 319. Counsel for the defendants also drafted a proposed consent order, which recited that all
parties had consented to the settlement. Id. at 320-21.
Both parties were well aware, however, that Jersey City’s Municipal Council had to
approve a settlement between the parties before a judge could sign the consent order. Id. at 32021. In fact, an attorney for the defendant wrote a letter to the presiding judge in that case indicating
that the Municipal Council had not consented to the settlement and that there were difficulties in
ratifying the settlement. Id. at 321. Thus, it was clear to defendant’s counsel that Jersey City’s
attorneys had not obtained municipal approval of the settlement and that the Municipal Council
had not consented “in any fashion” to the settlement. Id. at 322.
The Appellate Division overturned the trial judge’s decision approving the consent order,
noting that “[g]overnmental bodies must act by formal action not only with respect to contracts,
but also as to giving consent to the settlement of litigation.” Id. at 328 (internal citations omitted).
The court held that the consent order was a nullity because the record reflected that the Municipal
Council had not approved the settlement and that both parties were keenly aware that the Municipal
Council was required to approve the settlement. Id. at 326-27.
Similarly, in the present case, the record before the Court fails to demonstrate that the
Board of Chosen Freeholders approved or consented in any way to any alleged settlement. Like
the defendant’s counsel in Roosevelt Stadium Marina, who was aware that the municipal body had
to approve the settlement in that case, here, Ms. Burke was mindful of the fact that any potential
settlement agreement was conditioned upon approval by the Board of Chosen Freeholders. This
is evidenced by Ms. Burke’s email to Defendants’ counsel, where she wrote, “Please advise when
you think this will be submitted to the freeholders for formal approval.” (Pl.’s Ex. A, ECF No.
144) (emphasis added). Ms. Burke also informed this Court during the March 11 teleconference
10
Case 3:16-cv-01578-PGS-LHG Document 155 Filed 05/07/20 Page 11 of 13 PageID: 3864
that “the freeholders have to approve any settlement and I don’t know when that executive meeting
will be held.” (Telephone Conference Call Transcript 4:13-14).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s familiarity with the County’s approval process demonstrates that any
settlement negotiations in which the parties engaged were not binding on the Defendants, since
the Freeholders had to, but in this case did not, approve the settlement.
Moreover, in support of his argument that Mr. Kovats had authority to bind the County,
Plaintiff relies principally on the case Newark Branch, NAACP v. West Orange, 786 F. Supp. 408
(D.N.J. 1992). The facts in Newark Branch, NAACP, however, are distinguishable from the facts
currently before this Court and thus lend little support to Plaintiff. For one, Newark Branch,
NAACP involved a consent decree, which is a negotiated agreement entered as a court order and
which requires judicial approval. See Newark Branch NAACP, 786 F. Supp. at 416. A settlement
agreement, on the other hand, and which Plaintiff claims was reached in this case, is an out-ofcourt resolution which entails the requirements of a contract, as described above.
Also, the township’s attorney in Newark Branch, NAACP had engaged in extensive,
months-long discussions with West Orange’s Town Council and Mayor about the terms of the
consent decree, and even exchanged drafts of the consent decree. Newark Branch, NAACP, 786
F. Supp. at 417-18. Conversely, in the instant case, there is scant evidence that Mr. Kovats engaged
in detailed discussions with the Board of Chosen Freeholders regarding the potential settlement,
or that Mr. Kovats provided drafts of a proposed settlement to the Freeholders. Furthermore,
unlike the township’s attorney in Newark Branch, NAACP, there is no evidence to suggest that it
was Mr. Kovats’s practice to settle cases without the approval of the Board of Freeholders.
Plaintiff hones in on the email Mr. Kovats sent on March 20, 2020, where he stated, in part,
“As I had represented to you and the Court it was not my understanding that the settlement would
11
Case 3:16-cv-01578-PGS-LHG Document 155 Filed 05/07/20 Page 12 of 13 PageID: 3865
be rejected.” (Kovats email, March 20, 2020). Ms. Burke construes Mr. Kovats’ statement to
mean that, based on Mr. Kovats’ “understanding” that the Board of Chosen Freeholders would
likely approve the settlement, Mr. Kovats inherently possessed authority (either actual or implied)
to settle the matter on behalf of the County. (See Pl.’s Surreply Br. 3-4, ECF No. 154). Despite
Ms. Burke’s interpretation of Mr. Kovats’ settlement authority, it appears that Mr. Kovats was
only expressing his belief of the likelihood that the County would approve the settlement, not
whether he was provided with authority to settle the matter on behalf of the County. Thus, based
on Mr. Kovats’s representations, settlement of this matter was never a guarantee.
Lastly, Plaintiff argues that even if the Board of Chosen Freeholders had to approve the
settlement, his motion should nonetheless be granted against individual Defendants Compton and
Krzyzanowksi because they failed to oppose Plaintiff’s motion, and thus impliedly consented to
the settlement terms. Plaintiff’s argument, however, fails because any settlement reached would
have collectively bound all defendants, regardless of the mechanics of how any settlement payment
would be distributed. In addition, as explained above, no settlement was reached; therefore, there
is no agreement to which Compton and Krzyzanwoski would be bound.
In sum, the facts demonstrate that are disputed issues of material fact about whether the
parties entered into a valid settlement agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.
ORDER
This matter, having come before the Court on Plaintiff’s’ Motion to Enforce Settlement
(ECF No. 142), and the Court having carefully reviewed and taken into consideration the
submissions of the parties, as well as the arguments and exhibits therein presented, and for good
cause shown, and for all of the foregoing reasons,
IT IS on this 6th day of May, 2020,
12
Case 3:16-cv-01578-PGS-LHG Document 155 Filed 05/07/20 Page 13 of 13 PageID: 3866
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement (ECF No. 142) is DENIED; and
it is further
ORDERED that Defendant Robert Compton’s motion for leave to file a surreply brief
(ECF No. 147); Monmouth County’s motion for leave to file a surreply brief (ECF No. 148); and
Defendant Krzyzanowski’s motion for leave to file a surreply brief (ECF No. 150) are DENIED
as moot; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions to strike Compton’s and Krzyzanowski’s motions for
leave to file surreply briefs (ECF Nos. 149, 151) are DENIED as moot.
s/Peter G. Sheridan
PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.
13
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?