Free Motion to Strike - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 Ed Hendricks. (Arizona Bar N0. 002359)
MEYER HENDRICKS PLLC
2 3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2915
3 Telephone Number: (602) 604-2200
4 C. Frederick Reish (Arizona Bar No.: 002408)
Michael A. Vanic (California Bar No.: 073486) (pro imc vice)
5 REISH LUFTMAN REICHER & COHEN
11755 Wilshire Boulevard, 10th Floor
6 Los Angeles, CA 90025-1539
Telephone Number: (310) 478-5656
7
8 Attorneys for Defendants Charles M. Brewer,
Charles M. Brewer, Ltd. Profit Sharing Plan and Trust,
9 Charles M. Brewer, Ltd. Restated Pension Plan
10
1 1
12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
1
14
Stuart J. Reilly, CASE NO.: CIV 02 2218 PHX BTM
15
16 Plalnmai MoT1oN TO STRIKE THE
VS PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S REPLY
17 ‘ TO DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED
Charles M. Brewer, Ltd., Profit Sharing Plan A-1-ED
18 and Trust, a retirement plan; Charles M. TO DEFENDANTS, FINDINGS OF
Brewer, Ltd. Restated Pension Plan, a FACT
19 retirement plan; Ross Gordon and Associates,
20 lnc., a corporation; and Charles M. Brewer,
21
22 Defendants move to strike the portions and of Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants’
23 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law relating to Defendants’ Findings of Fact
24 on the grounds that the Court did not give the parties leave to respond or reply to the other’s
25 proposed Findings of Fact, but instead, specifically limited the reply or response of each
26 party to responding to the other’s proposed Conclusions of Law, and on the further grounds
27 that, because Plaintiff has included a reply with regard to Defendants’ proposed Findings of
28 Fact, Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Caaei.2:02-cv—02218—BTI\/I-LSP Document 288 Filed 05/25/2006 Pagemip $22 DISPHX Bm

1 exceeds the 10 page limit set by the Court for the Reply. Specifically, in this regard, the
2 Court stated:
3 "The Court: And any replies, and the replies would only be not to
4 the findings of fact but to the conclusions, you know, the legal argument, by
May 22nd. And that’s limited to 10 pages, the reply." [Transcript (4-26-06)
5 166; 4-7]]
6 If the Court denies Defendants’ Motion and permits Plaintiff to file his reply to
7 Defendants’ Proposed Findings of Fact contrary to the limited leave granted the parties
8 with regard to Relics on April 26, 2006, then, as a matter of fundamental fairness, the
9 Defendants’ respectfully request leave to file their own reply to Plaintiff` s Proposed
10 Findings of Fact.
11
12 May 25, 2006 REISH LUFTMAN REICHER & COHEN
13
By: sf MichaelA. Vcmic
14 C. Frederick Reish
Michael A. Vanic
15 11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Tenth Floor
16 Los Angeles, California 90025-1539
and
17
MEYER HENDRICKS PLLC
18 Ed Hendricks
3030 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
19 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2915
20 Attorneys for Defendants Charles M. Brewer,
Ltd. and Charles M. Brewer
2] ORIGINAL of the foregoing FILED
and COPIES mailed and E-Mailed
22 this 25th day of May 2006, to:
23 Stuart .1. Reilly (sreilly@,stuart]`rei1lypc.com) (Attorneys for Plaintiff)
Law Offices of Stuart J. Reilly, P.C.
24 P.O. Box 80410
Phoenix, Arizona 85060-0410
25 s/ Tinee Parelf
2 6 Tinee Parell
27
28 I The Court reiterated the 10 page limit on the reply at Transcript (4-26-06) 171 :5-1 1.
Ca¤ee¤2:02—cv—02218—BTI\/I—LSP Document 288 Filed 05/25/2006 Paget\,2_g;,fV2222,8PHXB.,`,,

Case 2:02-cv-02218-BTM-LSP

Document 288

Filed 05/25/2006

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:02-cv-02218-BTM-LSP

Document 288

Filed 05/25/2006

Page 2 of 2