2 bburns(cDal
3 sosteen(cvgakin.g·ump.com
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
4 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4100
5 Dallas, Texas 75201
Phone: (214) 969-2800
6 Facsimile: (214) 969-4343
7 Tricia Schafer (018748)
8 tricia.schafer(a)mwmf.com
MARISCAL, WEEKS, MCINTYRE & FRIEDLANDER, P.A.
9 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 200
10 Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Phone: (602) 889-5341
U Facsimile: (602) 285-5100
12 Attorneys for Defendants
13
14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
16 Patrice Jerome, CV03-1913-PHX-MHM
17 Piamurr,
18
v. DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT
19 OF THEIR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
20 FILE THEIR REPLY IN FURTHER
SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR
21 PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION
22 Midway Holdings, Inc.; Midway Chevrolet,
23 Inc.,
24
Defendants.
25
Defendants Midway Holdings, Inc. and Midway Chevrolet, Inc. ("Midway Auto Team") .
26 -
file this Reply in Support of Their Motion for Leave to File Their Reply in Further Support of
27
Their Motion for Partial Reconsideration and respectfully show the Court as follows:
28
Case 2:03-cv-01913-IVIHIVI Documeht 90 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 1 of 4
1 II. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING THIS REPLY
2 Leave should be granted to file Defendants’ Reply in Further Support of Their Motion
3 for Partial Reconsideration because the reply is reasonable and necessary to respond to new
4 arguments raised by Plaintiff in Plaintiff ’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Partial
5 Reconsideration, and will provide the Court with the benefit of a complete record. Plaintiff ’s
6 Counsel makes no competent argument as to why leave should not be granted as requested, and
7 no good reason exists. Contrary to Plaintiff ’s cursory opposition statement, Defendants have
8 not briefed, nor had an opportunity to brief, arguments raised for the first time by Plaintiff in
9 her Response to Defendants’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration, many of which are either
10 misleading, objectionable, or contrary to or inconsistent with Ninth Circuit precedent, as
11 discussed in the Reply. Thus, while granting leave to file a short reply will not harm Plaintiff
12 at all, denying leave would substantially prejudice Defendants, as well as put the Court in the
13 position of ruling without the benefit of a complete record.
14 Basic principles of fairness favor granting leave to file reply briefs under these
15 circumstances, and district courts both have the discretion to grant motions for leave to file
16 reply briefs under these circumstances, and routinely do so. See, e. g. , Deal ex rel Deal v.
17 Hamilton County Dept. of Educ., No. 1:01-cv-295, 2006 WL 2854463, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Aug.
18 1, 2006) ("in the interest of obtaining a full and complete record for any court reviewing this
19 matter on appeal, the Court will grant the Deals’ motion to file a reply brief"); United States v.
20 Robinson, 366 F. Supp. 2d 498, 504 (E.D. Mich. 2005) (in light of "the Court’s interest in
21 complete and accurate briefing in this case, the Court shall grant Defendant a limited extension
22 of time within which to file his reply brief ’); Blalock v. Bethesda Lutheran Homes and Serv.,
23 [ne., No. 01 C 9188, 2002 WL 31833693, at *5 (N .D. Ill. Dec. 16, 2002) (concluding that it is
24 "customary" for the moving party to file a reply to the non-moving party’s response," even if
25 the reply was not expressly authorized); Chubb Integrated Sys., [nc. v. National Bank of
26 Washington, 658 F. Supp. 1043, 1045 (D.D.C. 1987) (allowing filing of reply "[i]n the interest I
27 of allowing the parties the fullest opportunity to present their arguments, and in recognition of
28 the principle that the moving party is ordinarily entitled to file the final responsive pleadings").
Case 2:03-cv-01913-IVIHIVI Documeht 90 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 2 of 4
1 Moreover, granting leave to file the Reply as requested by Defendants will provide the Court
2 with the benefit of a complete record and assist it in making a proper ruling on the pending
3 motion.
4 III. CONCLUSION
5 For these reasons, Defendants respectfully request leave to file their Reply in Further
6 Support of Their Motion for Partial Reconsideration.
7 Respectfully submitted,
8
s/ Stephanie K. Osteen
9 M. Brett Burns (admitted pro hac vice)
Stephanie K. Osteen (admitted pro hac vice)
10 AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4100
11 narias, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 969-2800
12 Facsimile: (214) 969-4343
13 Tricia sciiarei (018748)
MARISCAL, WEEKS, MCINTYRE &
14 FRIEDLANDER, P.A.
2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 200
15 Piioeiiix, AZ 85012
Telephone: 602; 889-5341
16 Facsimiie; 602 285-5100
17 Attorneys for Defendants
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 2:03-cv-01913-IVIHIVI Document 90 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 3 of 4
I I hereby certify that on June 19, 2007
2 I electronically transmitted the attached document
to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System
3 for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing
4 to the following CM/ECF registrants:
5 Stephen G. Montoya
Montoya Jiminez, P.A.
6 3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2550
7 Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Attorney for Plaintiff
8
9 COPY hand-delivered to:
10 The Honorable Mary H. Murguia
United States District Court for the District of Arizona
U Sandra Day O’Com1or United States Courthouse, Suite 525
12 401 West Washington Street, SPC 53
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
13
14 s/Stephanie K. Osteen
15 6101010
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 2:03-cv-01913-IVIHIVI Documertt 90 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 4 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-01913-MHM
Document 90
Filed 06/19/2007
Page 1 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-01913-MHM
Document 90
Filed 06/19/2007
Page 2 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-01913-MHM
Document 90
Filed 06/19/2007
Page 3 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-01913-MHM
Document 90
Filed 06/19/2007
Page 4 of 4
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms