Ace Oilfield Rentals LLC v. Western Dakota and Fabrication LLC et al

Filing 117

ORDER Striking re 116 Response to Motion filed by Doug Kerkvliet. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 4/1/2021. (mb)

Case 5:15-cv-00672-D Document 117 Filed 04/01/21 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ACE OILFIELD RENTALS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
WESTERN DAKOTA WELDING
AND FABRICATION, LLC,
DOUG KERKVLIET,
TUCKER PANKOWSKI, and
WESDAK WELDING AND
DIESEL, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-672-D

ORDER
Defendant Doug Kerkvliet’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 116] is hereby STRICKEN for failure to comply
with LCvR 7.1 and 56.1, and FED. R. CIV . P. 6(b)(1)(B) and 56(c) and (e).
Defendant Kerkvliet filed his response thirty-five days after the deadline, and he did
not file a motion seeking leave to file out of time. 1 Further, the response does not
include a section that responds “by correspondingly numbered paragraph, to the
facts” asserted by Plaintiff, nor does it cite with particularity to any evidentiary

1

Pursuant to LCvR 7.1(g), a party opposing a motion shall file a response within twentyone days after the motion is filed; any motion that is not opposed within the twenty-one
days “may, in the discretion of the court, be deemed confessed.” See also FED. R. CIV. P.
6(b)(1)(B) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for
good cause, extend the time on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed
to act because of excusable neglect.”

Case 5:15-cv-00672-D Document 117 Filed 04/01/21 Page 2 of 3

material in the record. LCvR 56.1(c). 2 As a result, the Court cannot decipher what
facts Defendant Kerkvliet contends are in dispute. Although a pro se litigant’s
pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, pro se parties still must follow the same rules
of procedure that govern other litigants. See, e.g., Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux
& Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). The Court has already cautioned
Defendant Kerkvliet about failing to follow the Local Rules of this Court and the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Doc. No. 104].
A copy of the Court’s Local Rules is posted on the Court’s website at
https://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/local_rules_6-22-2018A.pdf.
The Court also directs the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of the Local Civil Rules to
Mr. Kerkvliet.

2

See also FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c), which provides that a “party asserting that a fact cannot
be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to particular parts of
materials in the record . . . or showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence
or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible
evidence to support the fact.” “If a party fails to properly address another party’s assertion
of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may consider the fact undisputed for purposes
of the motion” or “may grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials—
including the facts considered undisputed—show that the movant is entitled to it.” FED.
R. CIV. P. 56(e)(2), (3).
2

Case 5:15-cv-00672-D Document 117 Filed 04/01/21 Page 3 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of April 2021.

3