Robert G. Furst v. Linda Mayne, et al.

Summary

The court denies Plaintiff Robert G. Furst’s motion to strike Defendants’ untimely response to his motion for sanctions. Although the response was filed six days late without an extension and was therefore subject to being stricken under the local rules, the court declined to strike it because Plaintiff did not show prejudice from the delay.

Holdings

1. A motion to strike is procedurally proper when it seeks to strike a filing that is prohibited or unauthorized by a statute, rule, or court order, including a filing that does not comply with the local rules.
2. Defendants' response was filed out of compliance with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(c) because it was filed six days after the fourteen-day deadline and Defendants had not obtained an extension.
3. Although the court had discretion to strike the untimely response, it declined to do so because Plaintiff had not shown prejudice from the six-day delay.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's motion to strike was procedurally proper under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(m)(1).
2. Whether Defendants' response was filed in violation of the deadline in Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(c).
3. Whether the court should exercise its discretion to strike the untimely response absent a showing of prejudice.

Disposition

other