THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
September 24, 2010
EDWARD EARL NICHOLSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
UTI WORLDWIDE, INC. AND UTI INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, INC. DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge J. Phil Gilbert United States District Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This cause has come before the Court upon Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification (Doc. 86). They argue that a sur-reply is necessary because Plaintiffs raised new factual allegations in their reply brief. Plaintiffs oppose the motion (Doc. 89).
Local Rule 7.1(c) states in pertinent part, "Under no circumstances will sur-reply briefs be accepted." Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for leave to file a sur-reply brief (Doc. 86). To the extent Plaintiffs belatedly raised any matter for the first time in their reply brief, the Court may disregard it. See Wright v. United States, 139 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir.1998) (arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are deemed waived).
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.