MADDIN, INC. v. ALLIED INSURANCE COMPANY, 2:13-CV-827-KJD-NJK. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20140904c47
Visitors: 18
Filed: Sep. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 03, 2014
Summary: ORDER KENT J. DAWSON, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#39). Plaintiff responded (#43), and Defendants replied (#45). However, contained within the reply is a Motion to Strike Unsupported Factual Assertions. This contravenes Special Order 109(III)(F)(4) which reads: A separate document must be filed for each type of document or purpose. Examples: separate documents must be filed for response and motion rather than a response and counter motion in on
Summary: ORDER KENT J. DAWSON, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#39). Plaintiff responded (#43), and Defendants replied (#45). However, contained within the reply is a Motion to Strike Unsupported Factual Assertions. This contravenes Special Order 109(III)(F)(4) which reads: A separate document must be filed for each type of document or purpose. Examples: separate documents must be filed for response and motion rather than a response and counter motion in one..
More
ORDER
KENT J. DAWSON, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#39). Plaintiff responded (#43), and Defendants replied (#45). However, contained within the reply is a Motion to Strike Unsupported Factual Assertions. This contravenes Special Order 109(III)(F)(4) which reads:
A separate document must be filed for each type of document or purpose. Examples: separate documents must be filed for response and motion rather than a response and counter motion in one document. Motions may ask for only one type of unrelated relief thus, rather than filing a motion to severe [sic] and to dismiss, a separate motion to severe [sic] and a separate motion to dismiss must be filed.
As the resolution of the Motion to Strike will impact the resolution of the underlying Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court cannot yet resolve the underlying motion (#39).
Also before the Court is Plaintiff Maddin's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Summary Judgment (#40) to which Defendants responded (#41) and Plaintiff replied (#44). However, contained within the response is a Motion to Strike Unsupported Factual Assertions. This too contravenes Special Order 109(III)(F)(4) for precisely the same reasons, and similarly precludes resolution of the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants are admonished to abide by Special Order 109 in all particulars going forward.
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk to enter the Motions to Strike (#45, attachment #2; #41, attachment #18) as separate motions to strike, including a time for response and reply calculated from the date of entry of the Motions to Strike as separate orders. The parties will have these timeframes in which to respond and reply respectively to these two motions. The Court will return to the motions for summary judgment once the motions to strike have been resolved.
Source: Leagle
