Farley v. Cabell County Board of Education

Filing 83

ORDER granting Defendant's 81 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Untimely Filed Motion For Summary Judgment; directing that Plaintiff's 77 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment and in Support of Summary Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff remain on the docket; however, the Court will interpret it as merely a response to Defendant's 75 Motion for Summary Judgment; to the extent that Plaintiff's 77 pleading constitutes a motion for summary judgment in Plaintiff's favor, it is STRICKEN. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 12/4/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (jsa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION

JILL FARLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-00186

CABELL COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION,
Defendant.

ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Untimely Filed
Motion For Summary Judgment (ECF No. 81). As explained below, the Court GRANTS
Defendant’s Motion to Strike. The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment and in Support of Summary Judgment
in Favor of Plaintiff (ECF No. 77) remain on the docket, however, the Court will interpret it as
merely a response to Defendant’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 75).
The issue that currently confronts the Court arises out of the pleadings subsequent to
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 75). Defendant properly filed that motion
on November 13, 2017. Under the Second Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 50), November
13, 2017 was the last day to file a dispositive motion. See Second Amend. Scheduling Order, ECF
No. 50, at 1. Plaintiff then filed a pleading that purports to be the response to Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment.

That pleading, entitled Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion For Summary Judgment and in Support of Summary Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff,”
appears to both respond to Defendant’ Motion for Summary Judgment and to request summary
judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed this pleading on November 22, 2017, within the
time allocated for a response. See LR Civ. P. 7.1(a)(7). However, Plaintiff filed this pleading nine
days after the deadline to file dispositive motions under the Second Amended Scheduling Order.
Additionally, the Court had not received any request to extend that deadline. Therefore, the Court
finds that any motion made by Plaintiff for summary judgment in her favor is untimely, and it shall
not be considered as such.
In its Motion to Strike, Defendant requests “an order striking those portions of Plaintiff’s
[Response] which seek summary judgment.” Def.’s Mot. to Strike, ECF No. 81, at 3. While
Defendant is correct that any motion for summary judgment made by Plaintiff in that pleading is
untimely, the Court finds that striking portions of the pleading would be difficult in light of the
format of Plaintiff’s “response.” Therefore, the Court will interpret the filing as a response and
will disregard any request for summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor that is made in that pleading.
However, to the extent that Platiniff’s pleading, ECF No. 77, constitutes a motion for summary
judgment in Plaintiff’s favor, it is STRICKEN.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unpresented parties.

ENTER:

December 4, 2017

ROBERT C. CHAMBERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-