CARRINGTON et al v. DUKE UNIVERSITY et al

Filing 142

REPLY to Response to 140 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint; filed by KYLE DOWD, PATRICIA DOWD, DANIEL FLANNERY, RICHARD GIBBS FOGARTY, ZACHARY GREER, IRENE GREER, ERIK S. HENKELMAN, STEVEN W. HENKELMAN, JOHN E. JENNISON, BEN KOESTERER, EDWARD CARRINGTON, MARK KOESTERER, JOYCE KOESTERER, FRED KROM, PETER J. LAMADE, ADAM LANGLEY, CHRISTOPHER LOFTUS, DANIEL LOFTUS, BARBARA LOFTUS, ANTHONY MCDEVITT, GLENN NICK, CASEY J. CARROLL, NICHOLAS O'HARA, LYNNDA O'HARA, DANIEL OPPEDISANO, SAM PAYTON, JOHN BRADLEY ROSS, KENNETH SAUER, III, STEVE SCHOEFFEL, ROBERT SCHROEDER, DEVON SHERWOOD, DANIEL THEODORIDIS, MICHAEL P. CATALINO, BRET THOMPSON, CHRISTOPHER TKAC, TRACY TKAC, JOHN WALSH, JR, MICHAEL WARD, ROBERT H. WELLINGTON, IV, WILLIAM WOLCOTT, MICHAEL YOUNG, GALE CATALINO, THOMAS V. CLUTE, KEVIN COLEMAN, JOSHUA R. COVELESKI, EDWARD J. CROTTY, EDWARD S. DOUGLAS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (COOPER, CHARLES) Modified on 9/29/2009 to remove duplicate text (Lee, Lisa).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 1:08-cv-119 ________________________________________________ ) ) EDWARD CARRINGTON et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) DUKE UNIVERSITY et al., ) ) Defendants. ________________________________________________ )

CIVIL COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO THE CITY OF DURHAM'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs agree with Durham's concession that there can be no objection to the filing of the amended complaint, insofar as most of the Defendants have not yet filed answers and therefore Plaintiffs are entitled under Rule 15 to amend. Plaintiffs filed the motion only because one defendant, Mr. Covington, had already filed an answer and therefore leave to amend was required as to him. However, although Mr. Covington has stated that he opposes Plaintiffs' motion, he has not filed an opposition to it, nor does he have any genuine grounds for opposing our motion because the new claim does not name him as a defendant. As stated in Plaintiffs' motion, Plaintiffs are amenable to Durham's filing a supplemental brief supporting dismissal of the new claim. But Durham's request for twenty pages is

1

excessive, given that there is only one new claim. Therefore, Plaintiffs propose that Durham be allowed to file a supplemental brief in support of its motion to dismiss of no more than ten pages, that Plaintiffs be allowed to file an opposition brief of no more than ten pages, and that Durham be allowed then to file a reply brief of no more than five pages.

September 28, 2009

Respectfully submitted, COOPER & KIRK, PLLC By: /s/ Charles J. Cooper __________________________ Charles J. Cooper [e-mail] David H. Thompson Brian S. Koukoutchos Nicole Jo Moss (N.C. Bar # 31958) [e-mail] David Lehn 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Tel. [phone] -andTHOMAS, FERGUSON & MULLINS, L.L.P. By: /s/ William J. Thomas __________________________ William J. Thomas, II (N.C. Bar # 9004) [e-mail] 119 East Main Street Durham, NC 27701 Tel. [phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 28, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following counsel: Counsel for J. Wesley Covington Kenneth Kyre, Jr. Email: [e-mail] Counsel for City of Durham Reginald B. Gillespie, Jr. Email: [e-mail] Counsel for Mark Gottlieb David William Long Email: [e-mail] Counsel for Benjamin Himan Joel Miller Craig Email: [e-mail] Counsel for Patrick Baker, Steven Chalmers, Ronald Hodge, Lee Russ, Stephen Mihaich, Beverly Council, Jeff Lamb, Michael Ripberger Patricia P. Kerner Email: [e-mail] Counsel for David Addison James B. Maxwell Email: [e-mail] Linwood Wilson, pro se Email: [e-mail] Counsel for Duke University Defendants and Duke SANE Defendants Jamie S. Gorelick Email: [e-mail] /s/ David Lehn 3