Filed: Jul. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 26, 2019
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. BURY , District Judge . On July 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification, which is really a request to file a Sur-Reply. There are no provisions in either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Local Rules) for filing sur-replies. The Court has already clarified the briefing schedule for the pending dispositive motions. (Order (Doc. 121)). In short, Plaintiff filed a Motion f
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. BURY , District Judge . On July 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification, which is really a request to file a Sur-Reply. There are no provisions in either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Local Rules) for filing sur-replies. The Court has already clarified the briefing schedule for the pending dispositive motions. (Order (Doc. 121)). In short, Plaintiff filed a Motion fo..
More
ORDER
DAVID C. BURY, District Judge.
On July 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification, which is really a request to file a Sur-Reply. There are no provisions in either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Local Rules) for filing sur-replies.
The Court has already clarified the briefing schedule for the pending dispositive motions. (Order (Doc. 121)). In short, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment/Response, i.e., Crossmotion for Summary Judgment. Defendants also included in the same document a Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's Response to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 122) and Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment/Reply (Docs. 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120) were subsequently due and filed on July 5, 2019.1 The Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Pages for these responsive documents. (Order (Doc. 121)). The only remaining briefs related to the parties' dispositive motions are the Defendants' Replies which were filed on July 22, 2019 (Doc. 126). The dispositive motions are now fully briefed and taken under advisement.
For this reason, the Plaintiff's Motion for Equitable Estoppel is also stricken. He asserts that the doctrine should preclude dismissal of his claims. The motion is really a sur-reply, raising a new response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The dispositive motions are fully briefed. The Plaintiff may not sur-reply, especially he may not raise new arguments by sur-reply.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Clarification (Doc. 123) and Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (Doc. 125), which in combination are really a Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike (Doc. 128) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall strike the Motion for Equitable Estoppel (Doc. 127) as an improper Sur-Reply.
