Robinson v. Mecham et al, No. 2:2015cv00738 - Document 30 (D. Utah 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying 25 Motion to Strike 23 Memorandum in Support of Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 7/15/2016. (blh)

Download PDF
Robinson v. Mecham et al Doc. 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION DENISE ROBINSON, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:15-cv-738 CW TAD MECHAM, et al., District Judge Clark Waddoups Defendants. Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells This matter is referred to the undersigned from Judge Clark Waddoups in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636 (b)(1)(B). 1 Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Reply made in support of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 2 Plaintiff argues the reply should be stricken because 1) Defendants raise new arguments for the first time in their reply; and 2) “Defendants cite to a case which Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to address.” 3 The court disagrees with Plaintiff’s arguments and finds that Defendants’ reply does not violate Local Rule 7-1(b)(2)(A) that limits a reply memoranda to “rebuttal of matters raised in the memorandum opposing the motion.” 4 While it is true that the court does not generally “review issues raised for the first time in a reply brief, [the court] make[s] an exception when the new issue argued in the reply brief is offered in response to an argument raised in the [plaintiff's] 1 Docket no. 8. 2 Docket no. 25. 3 Mtn. p. 1. 4 DUCivR. 7-1(b)(2)(A) (2015). Dockets.Justia.com brief.” 5 Here, the arguments made by Defendants in their reply brief are offered in response to Plaintiff’s opposition memorandum. The court therefore will deny Plaintiff’s motion. 6 ORDER Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Reply made in support of Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. 7 DATED this 15 July 2016. Brooke C. Wells United States Magistrate Judge 5 Beaudry v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 331 F.3d 1164, 1166 n.3 (10th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 6 See In re Gold Res. Corp. Sec. Litig., 776 F.3d 1103, 1119 (10th Cir. 2015) (affirming district court decision to deny motion to strike reply memorandum because the arguments made in the reply were made in response to the opposition memorandum). 7 Docket no. 25.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.