Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Terrell v. Central Washington Asphalt, Inc., 2:11-cv-00142-APG-VCF. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20160314643 Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 04, 2016
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE JOINDERS (DKT. #474) ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . Defendants/third party plaintiffs Central Washington Asphalt, Inc., Donald Hannon, James Wentland, and Jerry Goldsmith ("CW defendants") move to strike three joinders (Dkt. Nos. 461, 462, and 463) filed by plaintiff/third party defendant Mitchell Zemke in which Zemke seeks to join in three of his own oppositions to the CW defendants' motions for summary judgment. The CW defendants argue that in the joi
More

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE JOINDERS

(DKT. #474)

Defendants/third party plaintiffs Central Washington Asphalt, Inc., Donald Hannon, James Wentland, and Jerry Goldsmith ("CW defendants") move to strike three joinders (Dkt. Nos. 461, 462, and 463) filed by plaintiff/third party defendant Mitchell Zemke in which Zemke seeks to join in three of his own oppositions to the CW defendants' motions for summary judgment. The CW defendants argue that in the joinders, Zemke improperly added substantive arguments beyond what was in the oppositions, violated the page limits to oppose summary judgment motions, and sought summary judgment beyond the dispositive motion deadline.

Zemke responds that he is both a plaintiff and a third party defendant in this litigation. He thus contends he may file oppositions based on each of those roles. He argues he filed the joinders within the time to respond to the summary judgment motions so I should consider them as timely filed oppositions.

Zemke cites no authority for the proposition that given his dual roles in the litigation, in which he is represented by different counsel, he may file separate oppositions without leave of the court to exceed the page limits. By not coordinating among counsel, Zemke filed nearly 50 extra pages in response to the CW defendants' motions. See LR 7-4 (limiting opposition briefs to 30 pages). He also sought summary judgment beyond the dispositive motion deadline in one of the joinders. (See Dkt. #461.)

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the CW defendants' motion to strike (Dkt. #474) is GRANTED and I will not consider the joinders when ruling on the CW defendants' summary judgment motions. I will not strike the documents from the record, however, so that the record is preserved in the event of an appeal.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer