Lawson v. Warner et al

Filing 43

ORDER by Judge Karen L Strombom denying 39 Motion for Extension of Time but will grant Mr. Lawson a short extension, until September 26, 2014, to file a response to defendants Motion to Dismiss. Defendants reply will be due on or before October 3, 2014 and denying 42 Motion to file surreply. The MOTION to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support Thereof 36 is re-noted for 10/3/2014. (MET) cc: plaintiff

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

GEOFFREY ROBERT LAWSON SR.,
Plaintiff,

9

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
PENDING MIOTIONS

v.
10
11
12
13

CASE NO. C14-5100 RBL-KLS

BERNARD WARNER, KIM WYMAN,
JEFFREY A UTTECHT, ROY
GONZALES, BAILEY, RAND
SIMMONS, L WONDERS, CHE,
MILLER, FORD, GUNTER, AYERS,
STUENKEL, JOHN 1 DOE, JOHN DOE
2,

14
Defendants.
15
16

This matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom

17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Local Rules MJR 3 and 4, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Defendants
18 filed a Motion to Dismiss and they provided plaintiff with notices regarding that motion (Dkt. 36
19 and 37). Defendants motion is noted for August 22, 2014.
20

Rather than respond to defendants’ motion, Mr. Lawson filed two motions with later

21 noting dates. Dkt 39 and 42. The Court will rule on Mr. Lawson’s motions now in order to
22 move the action forward.
23

Mr. Lawson filed a motion asking the undersigned to stay defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

24 and asking for an extension of the deadline for filing a response. Dkt. 39. Mr. Lawson’s motion
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MIOTIONS1

1 to stay is premised on his request for discovery. Dkt. 39, p. 3. The Court granted defendants’
2 motion to stay discovery in this action because defendants raised the affirmative defense of
3 qualified immunity. Dkt. 41. Accordingly, Mr. Lawson’s motion to stay the pending Motion to
4 Dismiss is DENIED.
5

Mr. Lawson also asks for sixty days of additional time to file a response to the pending

6 Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 39. Mr. Lawson’s request is excessive. The time for responding to a
7 motion to dismiss is normally 30 days. However, the undersigned will grant Mr. Lawson a short
8 extension, until September 26, 2014, to file a response to defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
9 Defendants’ reply will be due on or before October 3, 2014.
10

Mr. Lawson has also filed a motion asking for leave to file a surreply regarding the

11 motion to stay discovery. Dkt. 42. Defendants filed their reply August 19, 2014. Dkt. 38.
12 Local Rule 7(g) addresses surreplys:
13

(g) Requests to Strike Material Contained in Motion or Briefs; Surreply

14

Requests to strike material contained in or attached to submissions of opposing
parties shall not be presented in a separate motion to strike, but shall instead be
included in the responsive brief, and will be considered with the underlying
motion. The single exception to this rule is for requests to strike material
contained in or attached to a reply brief, in which case the opposing party may file
a surreply requesting that the court strike the material, subject to the following:

15
16
17
18
19
20

(1) That party must file a notice of intent to file a surreply as soon after
receiving the reply brief as practicable.
(2) The surreply must be filed within five days of the filing of the reply
brief, and shall be strictly limited to addressing the request to strike. Extraneous
argument or a surreply filed for any other reason will not be considered.

21

(3) The surreply shall not exceed three pages.

22

(4) No response shall be filed unless requested by the court.

23 See, Local Civil Rule 7(g).
24
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MIOTIONS2

1

Mr. Lawson signed his motion to file a surreply on August 27, 2014, and he signed his

2 surreply on August 28, 2014. Dkt. 42 and 42-1. This is nine days after the reply was filed. Dkt
3 38. Accordingly the motion is not timely. Further, the undersigned has already ruled on the
4 motion and stayed discovery in this action and the motion to file a surreply is moot. Dkt. 41.
5 The motion to file a surreply is DENIED.
6

The Clerk is directed to re-note defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 36), for October 3,

7 2014, The Clerk’s office may remove plaintiff’s pending motions (Dkt. 39 and 42) from the
8 Calendar and send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
9

Dated this 8th day of September, 2014.

10
11
12
13
14

A

15

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MIOTIONS3