NRP Holdings LLC et al v. City of Buffalo et al
Filing
175
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING Plaintiffs' 154 Motion to Strike; SETTING a submission schedule on the pending 152 166 Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by William M. Skretny, United States District Judge on 11/17/2016. (MEAL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NRP HOLDINGS LLC and
NRP PROPERTIES LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
11-CV-472S
CITY OF BUFFALO, et al.,
Defendants.
1.
Presently before this Court is Plaintiffs NRP Holdings LLC and NRP
Properties LLC’s Motion to Strike Defendants City of Buffalo, Byron W. Brown, and
Demone A. Smith’s (the “City Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment. On October
14, 2016, the City Defendants moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of
Plaintiffs’ claims against them on the grounds that they are protected from suit by
legislative and qualified immunity.
(See Docket No. 152.)
On October 18, 2016,
Plaintiffs moved to strike the motion for summary judgment, and moved to expedite the
motion to strike. (See Docket Nos. 154, 156.) This Court denied the motion to expedite
and stayed briefing on the motion for summary judgment pending resolution of the
motion to strike. (See Docket Nos. 157, 163.) On October 28, 2016, Defendant City of
Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency filed a motion for summary judgment joining the
arguments made by the City Defendants. (See Docket No. 165.) On October 21, 2016,
the City Defendants filed a separate Motion to Stay Discovery before Magistrate Judge
Foschio. (See Docket No. 161.) Despite Plaintiffs’ vigorous opposition, Judge Foschio
1
granted that motion on November 15, 2016, staying discovery pending resolution of the
City Defendants’ summary judgment motion. (See Docket No. 174.)
2.
The pending motion to strike asserts that the summary judgment motion
should be struck or, in the alternative, its resolution should be deferred, because it is an
improper dilatory by the City Defendants to avoid damaging discovery. Plaintiffs purport
to move for this relief under Rules 56, 16, and 11(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. However, the basis under which these rules are applicable to the motion is
unclear. The Rules themselves are not mentioned in Plaintiffs’ supporting declaration
submitted together with the motion to strike, or in the accompanying exhibits. Further,
Rules 56, 16, and 11(b)(1) do not address striking a motion for summary judgment, nor
any other document, and Plaintiffs submit no memorandum of law in support of the
moving papers to clarify their legal position.
Rule 11(a), which was not cited by
Plaintiffs, notes that a Court “must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is
promptly corrected after being called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.” See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11(a). Rule 12(f), which was also not cited by Plaintiffs, allows a Court to strike
a pleading on certain grounds. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Because the motion for
summary judgment is properly signed and is not a pleading, these rules are not
applicable.
3.
The City Defendants oppose the motion, noting that there is no procedural
basis for striking a motion for summary judgment. See Fin. Fed. Credit, Inc. v. Crane
Consultants, LLC, 21 F. Supp. 3d 264, 269 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (denying motion to strike
motion for summary judgment and noting that “there is authority that a motion to strike a
motion for summary judgment is procedurally improper”). Moreover, they assert that
2
doing so here would disregard significant Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent,
which holds that questions of immunity should be resolved “at the earliest possible
stage [of the] litigation.” See Drimal v. Tai, 786 F.3d 219, 225 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting
Wood v. Moss, 134 S. Ct. 2056, 2065 n.4, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1039 (2014)). Finally, the City
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by addressing the summary
judgment motion now, especially because, as Plaintiffs have asserted, the basis for the
summary judgment motion is purely legal, so their ability to respond would not be
impacted by incomplete discovery.
4.
In response to these arguments, Plaintiffs seem to abandon the motion to
strike and instead seek to bolster their alternative arguments that this Court should
defer consideration of the motion for summary judgment until discovery is complete.
The memorandum of law submitted with Plaintiffs’ reply papers cites little law, and
instead points the Court to the legal arguments made in opposition to the City
Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery. Some aspects of these two motions—Plaintiffs’
Motion to Strike, which is pending before this Court, and the City Defendants’ Motion to
Stay Discovery, which has since been granted by Judge Foschio—do overlap.
However, the relief being sought in each is distinct and warrants separate legal support.
Furthermore, this Court finds that the arguments made by the City Defendants in
opposition to the motion to strike merited response, particularly in light of the fact that
Plaintiffs’ moving papers were not grounded in legal argument. This Court declines to
address arguments made solely in Plaintiffs’ reply, including waiver.
See Mayer v.
Neurological Surgery, P.C., No. 15-CV-0864(DRH)(ARL), 2016 WL 347329, at *5
3
(E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2016) (finding it “appropriate to decline to address defendants’
waiver argument raised for the first time in their reply”).
5.
After carefully reviewing the submissions, this Court finds that Plaintiffs’
have presented no basis for striking the City Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment, nor for deferring its briefing and resolution. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Strike is denied. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek to make an argument as to waiver or
renew their opposition to the stay of discovery ordered by Judge Foschio, such
arguments should be submitted together with their opposition to the pending Motions for
Summary Judgment.
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (Docket No. 154) is
DENIED;
FURTHER, Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendants City of Buffalo, Byron W. Brown,
Demone A. Smith, and City of Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency’s Motions for Summary
Judgment (Docket Nos. 152, 166) are due by December 15, 2016. Defendants’ replies
are due by December 29, 2016. Oral Argument will be scheduled by the Court as
necessary.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 17, 2016
Buffalo, New York
/s/William M. Skretny
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY
United States District Judge
4
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?