Malone et al v. Clark Nuber PS et al

Filing 302

ORDER PERMITTING RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' NEW ARGUMENT by Judge Robert S. Lasnik; Pltfs may file, no later than 8/13/10, a memorandum not to exceed 10 pages addressing new argument (TF)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ORDER PERMITTING RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' NEW ARGUMENT - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE MICHAEL MALONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CLARK NUBER, P.S., et al., Defendants. Case No. C07-2046RSL ORDER PERMITTING RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' NEW ARGUMENT

This matter comes before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. Specifically, in the MNS defendants' reply in support of their motion for summary judgment, they argue, for the first time, that New York law applies and requires the dismissal of most of plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have not filed a sur-reply regarding the new argument. Nevertheless, plaintiffs should have an opportunity to address it both because it was belatedly raised and because defendants claim it is partially dispositive. Accordingly, plaintiffs may file, no later than Friday, August 13, 2010, a memorandum not to exceed ten pages in length addressing the new argument. No further briefing on the issue will be accepted. Moreover, during the upcoming oral argument, counsel should be prepared to address whether the belated assertion of the new argument­three years into this litigation­should result

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

in the imposition of sanctions and/or the shifting of costs and expenses in this litigation. DATED this 6th day of August, 2010.

A Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

ORDER PERMITTING RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' NEW ARGUMENT - 2