Free Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SUSAN MARTIN (AZ#014226) DANIEL L. BONNETT (AZ#014127) JENNIFER KROLL (AZ#019859) MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 3300 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1720 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2517 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Barbara Allen; Richard Dippold; Melvin Jones; ) Donald McCarty; Richard Scates and Walter G. ) West, individually and on behalf of all others ) similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan; Honeywell ) Secured Benefit Plan; Plan Administrator of Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan; and Plan ) Administrator of Honeywell Secured Benefit Plan, ) Defendants. ) No. CV04-0424 PHX ROS MOTION TO FILE SUR-REPLY IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 381

Filed 01/22/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants motion for reconsideration, which seeks to overturn the motion for summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the subsequent ruling denying Defendants first motion for reconsideration, did not argue that the 1977 regulation was entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v.Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) or attempt to show how the net effect of the challenged amendments increased benefits. Defendants reply brief does an about-face on the arguments Defendants consistently made during this litigation and raises these matters for the first time on reply. Because, as reflected in the Court s prior rulings, these issues are significant and could impact the ultimate outcome of this case, Plaintiffs respectfully request leave to address the matters first raised on reply through the sur-reply brief lodged herewith. It is improper for the moving party to shift gears and introduce new facts or different legal arguments in the reply brief than presented in the moving papers. Cal. Prac. Guide: Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 12-C, at 12:107. Because of the unfairness to Plaintiffs and the lack of the adversary exchange that sequential briefing is designed to accomplish, id., Plaintiffs hereby request leave to file the lodged sur-reply. Alternatively, Plaintiffs move to strike portions of Defendants reply brief that allege that the Court has already determined that Chevron deference to the 1977 regulation is appropriate, (Doc. 368, pp. 4-5) and that attempts to introduce for the first time arguments supporting Defendants claim that the net effect of the amendments increased Plan benefits. (Id. pp. 5-11.) Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of January, 2008. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. By: s/Susan Martin Susan Martin Daniel L. Bonnett Jennifer L. Kroll 3300 North Central Avenue Suite 1720 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2517 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

2

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 381

Filed 01/22/2008

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 22, 2008, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: David B. Rosenbaum Dawn L. Dauphine Osborn Maledon, P.A. 2929 North Central Ave., Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794 Michael Banks Azeez Hayne Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Howard Shapiro Proskauer Rose LLP 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1100 New Orleans, LA 70112 Amy Covert Proskauer Rose LLP th One Newark Center, 18 Floor Newark , NJ 07102-5211 Christopher Landau Eleanor R. Barrett Craig Primis Kirkland & Ellis LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Attorneys for the Defendants s/ S. Martin

3

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 381

Filed 01/22/2008

Page 3 of 3