Turner v. Toys "R" Us, Inc. et al

Filing 57

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 55 MOTION to Strike Defendants' Joint Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Remand. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 9/30/2013. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (mkw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION ALISON TURNER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-7245 (Consolidated with 3:12-7246 and 3:12-7248) TOYS “R” US, INC., a Delaware Corporation doing business in Cabell County, West Virginia; MOHAMMAD ROMAN, individually and in his capacity as general store manager of TOYS “R “ US, INC.; and JOHN DOE, unknown person or persons, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Joint Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand (ECF No. 55). The Court DENIES this Motion. Plaintiff argues that the Court should strike Defendants’ Response in Opposition as not timely filed, per Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a)(7), which states, “Memoranda and other materials in response to motions shall be filed and served on opposing counsel and unrepresented parties within 14 days from the date of service of the motion.” However, Plaintiff ignores the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which state, “When a party may or must act within a specified time after service and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a).”1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (emphasis added). 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) states, “The following rules apply in computing any time period specified . . . in any local rule . . . ,” including when computing a “period . . . stated in days.” 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(E) allows service “by electronic means.” Plaintiff served her Motion for Remand on Defendants’ counsel via electronic filing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system on September 9, 2013. Mot. for Remand, ECF. No. 50. Defendants thus had 17 days in which to file their Response to Plaintiff’s Motion, and they did so. Defendants’ Response is therefore timely, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is without merit. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Joint Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand is DENIED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this written Opinion and Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. ENTER: 2 September 30, 2013

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?