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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

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

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

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 PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER

Plaintiffs hereby move to file a surreply in opposition to Defendants motion to amend answer attached hereto as Exhibit A.

26 27 28

Defendants filed a motion to amend the answer on November 21, 2006. (Doc. 255.)

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 268

Filed 01/16/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Defendants motion was four pages long and most of the arguments in support of Defendants motion, including their arguments attempting to justify their delay in moving to amend, were not articulated until Defendants filed their reply brief on January 5, 2007. (Doc. 263.) Defendants reply brief also contains several inaccuracies. Plaintiffs

respectfully submit that the Court would benefit from additional briefing and correction by Plaintiffs of misstatements in Defendants reply brief. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

request leave to file the attached surreply. Alternatively, Plaintiffs move to strike pages 4-6 of Defendants reply brief for the reason that it raises new arguments purporting to excuse their delay and Plaintiffs have not had an opportunity to respond. See Lentini v. California Center for the Arts, Escondido, 370 F.3d 837, 843 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004) (declining to consider argument raised for the first time in reply brief because the opposing party had not been given the opportunity to respond). Respectfully submitted this 16th day of January, 2007.

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 268

Filed 01/16/2007

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 16, 2007, 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 William Delaney John G. Ferreira Azeez Hayne Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Amy Covert Proskauer Rose LLP One Newark Center, 18th Floor Newark , NJ 07102-5211 Howard Shapiro Proskauer Rose, LLP 909 Poydras St., Suite 1100 New Orleans, LA 70112 Attorneys for Defendants

s/Susan Martin

3

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 268

Filed 01/16/2007

Page 3 of 3