Timothy Joseph Smithe Foreign Grantors Trust v. Illinois Department of Public Health, Director of

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

TIMOTHY JOSEPH SMITHE, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 25-1072-DDC-GEB

v.

DIRECTOR OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The court has noticed that plaintiffs have filed surreplies to several defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. These filings are improper. When a party files a motion, the opposing party may submit one response, and the moving party may submit one reply. D. Kan. Rule 7.1(c). Courts typically don’t allow surreplies. Taylor v. Sebelius, 350 F. Supp. 2d 888, 900 (D. Kan. 2004). A party hoping to file a surreply must seek leave to do so. Id. Plaintiffs haven’t sought leave to file surreplies, nor do plaintiffs’ filings suggest any proper grounds for a surreply. Although courts must construe the substantive pleadings of pro se parties liberally, pro se litigants still must comply with the procedural rules or suffer the consequences of noncompliance. Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (“This court has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Ogden v. San Juan Cnty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994) (explaining a party’s pro se status “does not excuse the obligation . . . to comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil . . . Procedure”). This duty includes the court’s local rules. Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992). The court thus strikes plaintiffs’ improper surreplies and will not consider them. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the following documents are stricken:

• Doc. 289: surreply to the federal defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 246); • Doc. 300: surreply to Wintrust Financial Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 266); • Doc. 301: surreply to Old National Bank’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 259); • Doc. 302: surreply to H&R Block’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 251) • Doc. 306: surreply to Capital One’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 255); • Doc. 307: surreply to Tristate Capital Bank’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 271); • Doc. 308: surreply to Bank of America’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 268);

• Doc. 309: surreply to Wells Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 274). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 18th day of August, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas. s/ Daniel D. Crabtree Daniel D. Crabtree United States District Judge