Giron v. Springboard Incorporated

D. Arizona

Giron v. Springboard Incorporated

DecidedNovember 1, 2019

Docket2:17-cv-04280

StatusUnknown

This text of Giron v. Springboard Incorporated (Giron v. Springboard Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Giron v. Springboard Incorporated, (D. Ariz. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Joseph A Giron, et al., No. CV-17-04280-PHX-DLR

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Springboard Incorporated, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to strike, which is fully briefed. (Docs. 94- 17 96.) For the following reasons, the Court shall grant Defendants’ motion. 18 “The Local Rules do not provide for additional exhibits attached to replies in support 19 of summary judgment[.]” EEOC v. Swissport Fueling, Inc., 916 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1015 20 (D. Ariz. 2013) (citation omitted). In other words, a reply “may not introduce new facts or 21 evidence.” Larson v. United Natural Foods West, Inc., No. CV-10-185-PHX-DGC, 2010 22 WL 5297220, at *2 (D. Ariz. Dec. 20, 2010) (emphasis in original) (citing LRCiv 23 56.1(m)(2)). In their reply, Plaintiffs submit new exhibits in excess of 130 pages, including 24 a previously unaddressed complaint from an unrelated proceeding. (Docs. 87, 90.) 25 Plaintiffs have not sought leave of Court and have failed to provide Defendants the 26 opportunity to respond to these new facts. Accordingly, 27 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. 94) is GRANTED. 28 // 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall STRIKE Plaintiffs 2|| exhibits (Docs. 87, 90) in support of their reply. 3 Dated this Ist day of November, 2019. 4 5 Ls Ue 8 States Dictric Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Joseph A Giron, et al., No. CV-17-04280-PHX-DLR

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Springboard Incorporated, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to strike, which is fully briefed. (Docs. 94- 17 96.) For the following reasons, the Court shall grant Defendants’ motion. 18 “The Local Rules do not provide for additional exhibits attached to replies in support 19 of summary judgment[.]” EEOC v. Swissport Fueling, Inc., 916 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1015 20 (D. Ariz. 2013) (citation omitted). In other words, a reply “may not introduce new facts or 21 evidence.” Larson v. United Natural Foods West, Inc., No. CV-10-185-PHX-DGC, 2010 22 WL 5297220, at *2 (D. Ariz. Dec. 20, 2010) (emphasis in original) (citing LRCiv 23 56.1(m)(2)). In their reply, Plaintiffs submit new exhibits in excess of 130 pages, including 24 a previously unaddressed complaint from an unrelated proceeding. (Docs. 87, 90.) 25 Plaintiffs have not sought leave of Court and have failed to provide Defendants the 26 opportunity to respond to these new facts. Accordingly, 27 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. 94) is GRANTED. 28 // 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall STRIKE Plaintiffs 2|| exhibits (Docs. 87, 90) in support of their reply. 3 Dated this Ist day of November, 2019. 4 5 Ls Ue 8 States Dictric Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Giron v. Springboard Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giron-v-springboard-incorporated-azd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack