Minus v. Miami-Dade County

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: March 26, 2021
• Docket: 1:19-cv-25113
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 19-cv-25113-BLOOM/Louis

CHARLENA MINUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,

Defendant. ___________________________/

ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Charlena Minus’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Strike Defendant’s Supplemental Authority in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [62] (“Motion”), requesting that this Court strike Defendant Miami-Dade County’s (“Defendant”) two Notices of Supplemental Authority, ECF Nos. [59] & [61] (“Notices”), because the Notices were not filed with leave of court pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c)(1). The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, all opposing and supporting submissions, the Notices, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied. With regard to supplemental filings, such as notices of supplemental authority, such supplemental filings should direct the Court’s attention to legal authority or evidence that was not available to the filing party at the time that that party filed the original brief to which the subsequent supplemental filing pertains. They should further note the argument to which the legal authorities or evidence relate. Beyond that, however, supplemental filings should do nothing more. Put simply, notices of supplemental authority should not make legal argument. Case No. 19-cv-25113-BLOOM/Louis

Girard v. Aztec RV Resort, Inc., No. 10-62298-CIV, 2011 WL 4345443, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2011) (citing Pellegrino v. Koeckritz Dev. of Boca Raton, LLC, No. 08-80164-CIV, 2008 WL 4753726, at *2 n.2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2008)). A review of the Notices reveals that Defendant properly conformed with the requirements for filing supplemental authority before this Court. In particular, Defendant submitted, without the inclusion of additional improper legal argument, supplemental relevant legal authority that was not available at the time of the briefing. See ECF Nos. [59] & [61]. The Court concludes that Defendant’s Notices therefore adequately complied with the rules governing supplemental filings. As such, there is no basis to strike Defendant’s Notices. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No. [62], is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on March 25, 2021.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record