Coner v. Williams et al

MOTION to Strike 54 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment

D. Md.June 5, 2018

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MARYLAND LATOYA CONER, et al. Plaintiffs, vs. OFFICER DUANE WILLIAMS, et al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION No.:1:17-cv-000366-CCB PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE/REJECT DEFENDANT LONNIE WHITE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Now comes Plaintiffs, by and though their Attorneys, A. Dwight Pettit, Latoya Francis- Williams, and the Law Office of A. Dwight Pettit, PA., and files this Motion to Strike/Reject Defendant Lonnie White’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment as untimely and improper. In support thereof Plaintiffs state the following: 1. “Unless a different time is set by local rule or the court orders otherwise, a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery.” See USCS Fed Rules Civ. Proc. R 56(b); see also Doc 36. 2. Local Rule 105.2(a) reads in relevant part, “[a]ll motions must be filed within deadlines set by the Court. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, all memoranda in opposition to a motion shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of the service of the motion and any reply memoranda within fourteen (14) days after service of the opposition memoranda. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, surreply memoranda are not permitted to be filed.” Case 1:17-cv-00366-CCB Document 55 Filed 06/05/18 Page 1 of 4 2 3. Further, “[i]n a two-party case, if both parties intend to file summary judgment motions, counsel are to agree among themselves which party is to file the initial motion. After that motion has been filed, the other party shall file a cross-motion accompanied by a single memorandum (both opposing the first party’s motion and in support of its own cross- motion), the first party shall then file an opposition/reply, and the second party may then file a reply. If more than two (2) parties intend to file motions in a multi-party case, counsel shall submit a proposed briefing schedule when submitting their status report.” See Local Rule 105.2(c). 4. “Under the policy of Rule 56, movants are entitled to avoid the expense and tribulations of trial if they can prove that there is no triable issue. But if parties have been warned that they must move by a certain time and do not do so, they have waived their right to summary adjudication.” See In re School Asbestos Litigation, 977 F.2d 764, 794, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 25216, *91, 24 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 39. 5. On 4/29/18 Plaintiffs served all parties, through the Court’s electronic filing system, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law. 6. On 5/17/2018 Defendant Duane Williams, on behalf of himself, filed a Consent Motion to Extend Time to File a Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. See Doc 51; see also Doc 46. 7. On 5/22/2018 this Court granted Defendant Williams’ motion and signed the proposed Order, providing Defendant Williams until May 25, 2018 to file a response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. See Doc 52. 8. At no time did defendant Lonnie White, Jr. request or receive permission from this Court to file a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment 28 days after being served with Case 1:17-cv-00366-CCB Document 55 Filed 06/05/18 Page 2 of 4 3 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Further, at no time did defendant Lonnie White, Jr. request or receive permission to file his own Motion for Summary Judgment beyond the parties’ dispositive pretrial motions deadline and outside the requirements of Local Rule 105.2(c). The Parties did not discuss or submit a proposed briefing schedule when submitting their status report as Defendant White never confirmed with Plaintiffs’ counsel that he would, in fact, file a Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs simply had no notice that either of defendant White’s Motions was being filed until they were filed on 5/25/2018. 9. Defendant Lonnie White’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment are untimely, improper and without evidence of excusable neglect. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ have been unduly prejudiced as defendant White’s untimely filing has robbed Plaintiffs of adequate time to file a substantive opposition/reply to White’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. White’s filings should, therefore, be stricken from the record and rejected for failing to comport with this Court’s Scheduling Order, the Local Rules and causing undue prejudice to Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Latoya Coner, et al., respectfully request this Court Strike/Reject Defendant Lonnie White, Jr.’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment as untimely and improper. Respectfully submitted this 5 th day of June, 2018. ________________/s/_________________ A. Dwight Pettit, Esq., Bar ID 01697 Latoya Francis-Williams, Esq., Bar ID 29957 Law Offices of A. Dwight Pettit, P.A. 3606 Liberty Heights Avenue Baltimore, Maryland 21215 (410) 542 5400 Attorney for Plaintiffs Case 1:17-cv-00366-CCB Document 55 Filed 06/05/18 Page 3 of 4 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 5 th day of June, 2018 copies of this Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendant Lonnie White, Jr.’s PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE/REJECT DEFENDANT LONNIE WHITE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT was served via this Court’s CM/ECF filing system to all counsel of record: ________________/s/_________________ A. Dwight Pettit, Esq., Bar ID 01697 Latoya Francis-Williams, Esq., Bar ID 29957 Law Offices of A. Dwight Pettit, P.A. 3606 Liberty Heights Avenue Baltimore, Maryland 21215 (410) 542 5400 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Case 1:17-cv-00366-CCB Document 55 Filed 06/05/18 Page 4 of 4