Ohio Security Insurance Company v. David Grace Construction Inc

W.D. Oklahoma

Ohio Security Insurance Company v. David Grace Construction Inc

DecidedApril 19, 2023

Docket5:22-cv-00133

StatusUnknown

This text of Ohio Security Insurance Company v. David Grace Construction Inc (Ohio Security Insurance Company v. David Grace Construction Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ohio Security Insurance Company v. David Grace Construction Inc, (W.D. Okla. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE ) COMPANY, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No. CIV-22-133-D v. ) ) DAVID GRACE CONSTRUCTION, ) INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 17], which became fully briefed upon the receipt of their reply brief. With the reply, however, Plaintiffs submitted new factual material in support of their Motion. “Generally, the nonmoving party should be given an opportunity to respond to new material raised for the first time in the movant’s reply.” Green v. New Mexico, 420 F.3d 1189, 1196 (10th Cir. 2005); see Beaird v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 145 F.3d 1159, 1164 (10th Cir. 1998). This is so because “Rule 56(c) requires the nonmoving party to be given notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond to the movant’s summary judgment materials.” Beaird, 145 F.3d at 1164. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Wilmer P. Orjuela may file a sur- reply brief within 7 days from the date of this Order, provided the brief does not exceed five pages in length and solely addresses new matter raised in Plaintiffs’ reply. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19" day of April, 2023.

Ny Q. TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE ) COMPANY, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No. CIV-22-133-D v. ) ) DAVID GRACE CONSTRUCTION, ) INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 17], which became fully briefed upon the receipt of their reply brief. With the reply, however, Plaintiffs submitted new factual material in support of their Motion. “Generally, the nonmoving party should be given an opportunity to respond to new material raised for the first time in the movant’s reply.” Green v. New Mexico, 420 F.3d 1189, 1196 (10th Cir. 2005); see Beaird v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 145 F.3d 1159, 1164 (10th Cir. 1998). This is so because “Rule 56(c) requires the nonmoving party to be given notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond to the movant’s summary judgment materials.” Beaird, 145 F.3d at 1164. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Wilmer P. Orjuela may file a sur- reply brief within 7 days from the date of this Order, provided the brief does not exceed five pages in length and solely addresses new matter raised in Plaintiffs’ reply. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19" day of April, 2023.

Ny Q. TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ohio Security Insurance Company v. David Grace Construction Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohio-security-insurance-company-v-david-grace-construction-inc-okwd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack