CARTER v. McCLURE, 13-cv-547-DRH-PMF. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20141031b45
Visitors: 15
Filed: Oct. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 30, 2014
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court for case management. On October 23, 2014, Phillip Carter and Jeffco Leasing Co. filed a reply to response in opposition to their motion for ruling on appeal and to lift the stay for dispositive motions (Doc. 53). Local Rule 7.1 (c) states in part: Reply briefs are not favored and should be filed only in exceptional circumstances. The party filing the reply brief shall state the exceptional circumstances. Here, none o
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court for case management. On October 23, 2014, Phillip Carter and Jeffco Leasing Co. filed a reply to response in opposition to their motion for ruling on appeal and to lift the stay for dispositive motions (Doc. 53). Local Rule 7.1 (c) states in part: Reply briefs are not favored and should be filed only in exceptional circumstances. The party filing the reply brief shall state the exceptional circumstances. Here, none of..
More
ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court for case management. On October 23, 2014, Phillip Carter and Jeffco Leasing Co. filed a reply to response in opposition to their motion for ruling on appeal and to lift the stay for dispositive motions (Doc. 53). Local Rule 7.1 (c) states in part:
Reply briefs are not favored and should be filed only in exceptional circumstances. The party filing the reply brief shall state the exceptional circumstances.
Here, none of the reply brief states the exceptional circumstances as to why a reply brief is needed. Thus, the Court STRIKES the reply.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
