Bader v. Roberts & Stevens, P.A. et al

Filing 20

ORDER Pltf's 18 Supplemental Response to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss and Reply to Defts' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss is ordered STRICKEN from the record and will not be considered by the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 1/17/17. (ejb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:16 CV 294

GREGORY BADER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff
v
MARK KURDYS and ROBERTS &
STEVENS, P.A.,
Defendants.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the undersigned pursuant to Plaintiff’s
Supplemental Respond to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss and Reply
to Defendants’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (#18) filed by
Attorney Robert Lewis, Jr. who has now filed a Notice of Appearance (#17) on
behalf of Plaintiff. On November 1, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and
Supporting Memorandum (#8) & (#9). On December 19, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel
filed a Response in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (#13). On December 22,
2016, Defendants filed a Reply (#15). As a result, the briefing in this matter was
completed on December 22, 2016.

1

LCvR 7.1(E) states as follows:
(E) Time Frames for the Filing of Responses to Motions and for
Replies.
Responses to motions, if any, shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of
the date on which the motion is served, as evidenced by the certificate
of service attached to said motion. A reply to the response to a motion,
if any, shall be filed within seven (7) days of the date on which the
response is served, as evidenced by the certificate of service attached
to said response. The filing of a reply brief is not mandatory. In any
event, a reply brief should be limited to a discussion of matters newly
raised in the response. If the party making the motion does not wish to
file a reply brief, it must so inform the Court and opposing counsel
promptly in an electronically filed notice.
The Plaintiff’s supplemental response filed on January 11, 2017, has been
filed outside of the time frames provided by Local Rule 7.1(E). Prior to filing the
Plaintiff’s supplemental response, Plaintiff’s counsel did not file a motion requesting
permission for the filing of such a pleading outside of the time set forth in the Local
Rules. The Court also notes that this Court rarely, if ever, allows the filing of such
a pleading absent new binding legal authority from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court that was decided
after briefing closed. As a result, the undersigned will enter an Order striking
Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Supplemental
Response to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss and Reply to
2

Defendants’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (#18) is ordered
to be STRICKEN from the record and will not be considered by the Court.

Signed: January 17, 2017

3