Cameron v. University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 3:19-cv-221-MOC-DCK. (2019)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20191105c40
Visitors: 3
Filed: Nov. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 04, 2019
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, JR. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Memorandum in Support of Motion, (Doc. No. 37), and on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 49). In support of the motions to strike, Plaintiff contends that Defendants improperly incorporated by reference arguments contained in other filings when filing their motions to dismiss. Plaintiff therefore asks the Court to strike Defendants' pending motions to dismis
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, JR. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Memorandum in Support of Motion, (Doc. No. 37), and on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 49). In support of the motions to strike, Plaintiff contends that Defendants improperly incorporated by reference arguments contained in other filings when filing their motions to dismiss. Plaintiff therefore asks the Court to strike Defendants' pending motions to dismiss..
More
ORDER
MAX O. COGBURN, JR., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Memorandum in Support of Motion, (Doc. No. 37), and on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 49). In support of the motions to strike, Plaintiff contends that Defendants improperly incorporated by reference arguments contained in other filings when filing their motions to dismiss. Plaintiff therefore asks the Court to strike Defendants' pending motions to dismiss.
The Court declines to grant the drastic relief that Plaintiff seeks. It would be a waste of time and resources to require Defendants to go back and resubmit arguments already placed before the Court, and the Court further finds that Plaintiff has not been prejudiced by Defendants' incorporation of arguments. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's Motions to Strike, (Doc. Nos. 37, 49), are both DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
