Painter-Payne et al v. Vesta West Bay, LLC

Filing 76

OPINION AND ORDER denying 63 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 1/7/2014. (pes1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
LENA M. PAINTER-PAYNE,
et al.,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:12-cv-912
Magistrate Judge King

VESTA WEST BAY, LLC,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
On October 31, 2013, defendant Vesta West Bay, LLC, filed
separate motions for summary judgment addressing the claims of
plaintiff Christopher Painter, Doc. No. 50, and those of plaintiff
Lena M. Painter-Payne, Doc. No. 51, On November 12, 2013, plaintiffs
filed a motion to strike the motion for summary judgment addressing
the claims of plaintiff Christopher Painter, Doc. No. 50.

Plaintiffs

Lena Painter Payne’s and Christopher Painter’s Motion Instaner [sic]
to Strike (“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike”), Doc. No. 63.

Plaintiffs

argue that the filing should be stricken from the record because
defendant’s motions for summary judgment, viewed together, exceed the
page limit for memoranda under S.D. Ohio civ. R. 7.2(a)(3).Plaintiffs’
argument is not well taken.
Rule 7.2(a)(3) provides as follows:
Limitation Upon Length of Memoranda. Memoranda in support
of or in opposition to any motion or application to the
Court should not exceed twenty (20) pages. In all cases in
which memoranda exceed twenty (20) pages, counsel must
include a combined table of contents and a succinct, clear

1

and accurate summary, not to exceed five (5) pages,
indicating the main sections of the memorandum, the
principal arguments and citations to primary authority made
in each section, as well as the pages on which each section
and any sub-sections may be found.
S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a)(3).

Although the rule expresses a preference

that memoranda not exceed twenty pages, the rule does not limit a
defendant to the filing of a single motion for summary judgment in
order to address the claims of multiple plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs have

not cited any relevant authority from this district that would suggest
otherwise.

Furthermore, the Court rejects plaintiffs’ argument that

they will be unfairly prejudiced by the filing of separate motions for
summary judgment.

Plaintiff Christopher Painter’s claims are

addressed only in Doc. No. 50; plaintiff Lena Painter-Payne’s claims
are addressed only in Doc. No. 51.

Although plaintiffs’ claims are

related, the Court perceives no prejudice in requiring each plaintiff
to respond to a motion for summary judgment that addresses only his or
her respective claims.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike, Doc. No. 63, is
DENIED.

January 7, 2014

s/Norah McCann King_______
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge

2