ORDER

PHILIP R. LAMMENS, Magistrate Judge.

This case is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority by all Plaintiffs (Doc. 183), to which Defendants have responded in opposition. (Doc. 184).

On June 20, 2014, Defendants filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. 182) pertaining to their Response (Doc. 174) in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Counts II and III (Doc. 160). Defendants' notice recites that Defendants submit for consideration the Supreme Court's recent decision in POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., __ U.S. ___, No. 12-761, 2014 WL 2608859 (June 12, 2014). Defendants contend that the Supreme Court's analysis in POM Wonderful is directly applicable and is controlling precedent for issues in this case. Defendants also provide three and a half pages of explanation and analysis regarding POM Wonderful in support of their contention. (Doc. 182).

Plaintiffs have moved to strike the Notice of Supplemental Authority and argue that it is not a "pure notice" but a legal memoranda disguised as a notice and thus impermissible under the Local Rules. (Doc. 183). Although Plaintiffs' argument may have merit, the Court is not inclined to strike Defendants' Notice. Indeed, Defendants' Notice serves to advise the Court of a recent Supreme Court decision that may be controlling in this case. As the POM Wonderful case was decided on June 12, 2014, it could not have been addressed by either party in their prior briefs.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike (Doc. 183) is DENIED, however, within ten (10) days of this Order, Plaintiffs may file a Response to Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority, limited to four (4) pages in length, and limited in scope to the arguments addressed by Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority.

DONE and ORDERED.