Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Sanders v. Michigan Supreme Court, 16-12959. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20180227a21 Visitors: 3
Filed: Feb. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER R. STEVEN WHALEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Defendant Norman Miller's motion to strike Plaintiff's second response in opposition to his motion to dismiss [Doc. #144]. Dr. Miller is correct that the sur-reply was improperly filed, and raised issues not addressed in Plaintiff's original response. See Jocham v. Tuscola Cnty., 239 F.Supp.2d 714 , 732 (E.D. Mich. 2003); Montesi v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 970 F.Supp.2d 784 , 792 (W.D.Tenn.2013). However, on February 23
More

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Norman Miller's motion to strike Plaintiff's second response in opposition to his motion to dismiss [Doc. #144]. Dr. Miller is correct that the sur-reply was improperly filed, and raised issues not addressed in Plaintiff's original response. See Jocham v. Tuscola Cnty., 239 F.Supp.2d 714, 732 (E.D. Mich. 2003); Montesi v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 970 F.Supp.2d 784, 792 (W.D.Tenn.2013). However, on February 23, 2018, I filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that Dr. Miller be dismissed from this action [Doc. #184]. In fn. 1, I addressed the impropriety of effectively amending a complaint by raising new issues in a sur-reply. Since Dr. Miller has prevailed notwithstanding the Plaintiff's sur-reply, his present motion to strike is moot.

The motion to strike [Doc. #144] is therefore DENIED AS MOOT.

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