Smith et al v. Chapman et al

Filing 182

ORDER denying as moot #143 Motion to Strike. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 08/04/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(jlk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:14-cv-238-MOC-DSC
DOUGLAS R. SMITH, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
Vs.
AVERY CHAPMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (#143) several filings.
Plaintiffs seek to strike “Reply to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment By Defendant
Taryn Hartnett’s Upon Her Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims” (#130) and “Reply to
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment By Defendants Avery Chapman and Chapman
Law Firm Upon Their Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims” (#129), for untimeliness, noting
that Defendants filed such documents two days late. The motion to strike these documents is now
moot, as Defendants have withdrawn the Motions for Summary Judgment precipitating these
replies (##91, 95). The court will note, however, that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(E) provide clear and concise rules regarding calculating
litigation deadlines, and that the court follows the deadlines set in ECF (which comply with such
rules). See LCvR 7.1(E). Counsel for all parties should follow the rules and dates in ECF to
determine deadlines.
Plaintiffs also seek to strike an “Affidavit of Scott G. Hawkins in Support of Defendants’
and Counterclaim and Third Party Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Counterclaims and

-1-

Replies Thereto” (#132), noting that Defendants waited an additional day to file such affidavit after
filing summary judgment motions on their counterclaims. The court again finds such motion moot

for the reasons stated above, but notes that for future reference, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
6(c)(2) requires that “[a]n affidavit supporting a motion must be served with the motion.” The court
further advises the parties to familiarize themselves with the Local Rules governing filing of motions
in this district. See LCvR 7.1.

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (#143) is DENIED
as moot.

Signed: August 4, 2015

-2-