Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

McGINNIS v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 3:14-cv-00581-FDW-DCK. (2015)

Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20150602d19 Visitors: 13
Filed: Jun. 01, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 01, 2015
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY , Chief District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim (Doc. No. 35) and memoranda filed by both parties in this case concerning this Motion (Doc. Nos. 36, 38, 39). To comply with this Court's rules governing word count limits in civil cases before the Honorable Judge Whitney, Misc. No. 3:07-MC-47 (Doc. No. 2) (hereinafter, "the Initial Scheduling
More

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim (Doc. No. 35) and memoranda filed by both parties in this case concerning this Motion (Doc. Nos. 36, 38, 39).

To comply with this Court's rules governing word count limits in civil cases before the Honorable Judge Whitney, Misc. No. 3:07-MC-47 (Doc. No. 2) (hereinafter, "the Initial Scheduling Order"), Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 38) is stricken summarily from the record. The Court directs Plaintiff to re-file a brief that complies with the Court's 6,000 word count limit, as set forth in the Court's Case Management Order (Doc. No. 18). The Court also notes that Plaintiff's Memorandum failed to include a certificate by Plaintiff's attorney stating that the submission complies with this Court's word count limitation rules, as required by Paragraph (3)(b)(iv) of the Initial Scheduling Order. Plaintiff must file a brief that complies with this Court's word limitations and rules with the Court no later than Wednesday, June 3, 2015. Additionally, Defendant may file a reply to Plaintiff's newly submitted brief no later than Monday, June 8, 2015. Plaintiff is instructed to closely review the Court's rules in order to ensure future compliance with these rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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