EVANS et al v. DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA, CITY OF et al

Filing 64

JOINDER in REPLY in Support of 40 MOTION to Dismiss of Defendants DNA Security, Inc. and Richard Clark; filed by BRIAN MEEHAN. (DICKINSON, PAUL) Modified on 5/12/2008 to reflect accurate title of pldg. (Lee, Lisa).

Download PDF
E V A N S et al v. DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA, CITY OF et al D o c . 64 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA C I V I L ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-00739 D A V I D F. EVANS, et al., P l a i n t if fs , v. T H E CITY OF DURHAM, N O R T H CAROLINA, et al., D e f e n d a n t s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) D E F E N D A N T BRIAN MEEHAN'S JOINDER IN REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANTS DNA SECURITY, INC. AND RICHARD CLARK C O M E S NOW defendant Brian Meehan ("Meehan") and hereby joins in and adopts b y reference the Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss of Defendants DNA Security, Inc. a n d Richard Clark ("DSI's Reply"). At the time of the events alleged in the Complaint, M e e h a n was the Laboratory Director for defendant DNA Security, Inc. ("DSI"), the DNA te s tin g laboratory retained by the State of North Carolina. See Amended Complaint ¶ 32. A c c o rd in g ly, the legal arguments set forth in DSI's Reply, which refer to Meehan, DSI and C la rk collectively as "the DSI Defendants," apply with equal force to Meehan. A f ter having read and considered each legal argument raised in DSI's Reply and in o rd e r to avoid burdening the Court with repetitious and duplicative legal memoranda, M e e h a n adopts by reference DSI's Reply pursuant to Rule 10 (c) , Fed. R. Civ. P. See also, Dockets.Justia.com 5 A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure 1326 (3d ed.2007). For the re a so n s set forth therein, Meehan respectfully requests that the claims against him be d is m is s e d . R e s p e c tf u lly submitted, this the 9th day of May, 2008. L E W IS & ROBERTS, PLLC s / J a m e s A. Roberts, III James A. Roberts, III N .C . State Bar No. 10495 E -m a il: jimroberts@lewis-roberts.com 1 3 0 5 Navaho Drive, Suite 400 R a le ig h , NC 27609-7482 T e le p h o n e : 919-981-0191 F a c sim ile : 919-981-0199 s /P a u l R. Dickinson, Jr. Paul R. Dickinson, Jr. N .C . State Bar No. 20510 E -m a il: pauldickinson@lewis-roberts.com 5 9 6 0 Fairview Road, Suite 102 C h a rlo tte , NC 28210 T e le p h o n e : 7 0 4 - 3 4 7 - 8 9 9 0 F a c sim ile : 704-347-8929 Attorneys for Defendant Brian Meehan 2 CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC FILING AND SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that, pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and LR5.3 and LR5.4, MDNC, I electronically filed the foregoing Motion with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which system will automatically generate and send Notification of Electronic Filing (NEF) to the undersigned filing user and registered users of record, and that the Court's electronic records show that each party to this action is represented by at least one registered user of record, to each of whom the NEF will be transmitted, except that with respect to the following parties, a copy is being transmitted via first class mail to the following non CM/ECF participants: Barry C. Scheck, Esq. 100 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10011 Richard D. Emery, Esq. Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP 75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor New York, NY 10019 Attorneys for Plaintiff Reade Seligmann Roger E. Warin, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson, LLP 1330 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 Attorney fof Defendant City of Durham, NC Linwood Wilson 6910 Innesbrook Way Bahama, NC 27503-9700 Defendant Pro Se R e sp e c tf u lly submitted, L E W IS & ROBERTS, PLLC s /P a u l R. Dickinson, Jr. Paul R. Dickinson, Jr. N .C . State Bar No. 20510 E m a il: pauldickinson@lewis-roberts.com 5 9 6 0 Fairview Road, Suite 102 C h a rlo tte , NC 28210 T e le p h o n e : 7 0 4 - 3 4 7 - 8 9 9 0 F a c sim ile : 704-347-8929 Attorneys for Defendant Brian Meehan

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?