The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
This Court's brief November 2, 2010 memorandum order ("Order"), issued sua sponte in connection with this action recently inherited from the calendar of its former colleague Honorable Wayne Andersen, addressed several pleadings that had been filed by counsel for the parties to the action and that needed correction. Counsel for Jaw Construction, Inc. ("Jaw") then filed an amended pleading on November 16, while counsel for Sam and Shannon Murante (collectively "Murantes")had filed an amended pleading on November 15, also before the designated November 17 due date. That date had been chosen by this Court to mesh with the previously-scheduled status date set for this morning (November 22).
Inexplicably, however, each counsel failed to comply with this District Court's LR 5.2(f) and the corresponding provisions of this Court's website, both of which expressly require the delivery of a hard copy of every filing to this Court's chambers:
1. Jaw's counsel, despite that early November 16 filing, proceeded to mail a copy to this court by ordinary mail on November 19 -- three days later. Needless to say, that copy was not delivered to this Court's chambers before today's previously-scheduled status hearing.
2. As for Murantes' counsel, when this Court's minute clerk called him last week to call his attention to his non-compliance, counsel impermissibly took it upon himself to decide that it would be all right to deliver the paper copy of Murantes' revised responsive pleading in court at the time of this morning's status hearing.
Both of those courses of conduct were really thoughtless and inconsiderate, given this Court's already-mentioned setting of a November 17 due date for the revisions to enable it to review them before today's status hearing.
At today's status hearing Murantes' counsel did hand up their Amended Answer to the Third-Party Complaint, and later in the day the mailed copy of Jaw's filing arrived in chambers. And those filings astonishingly disclosed that neither counsel had, as the Order had specifically directed, read and complied with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(5) and its elaboration set out in App'x ¶1 to the State Farm opinion referred to in the Order (see Murantes' Amended Answer ¶¶ 2, 5, 13-20 and 33 and Jaw's responses that employ the same unacceptable locution).
Accordingly both parties counsel are ordered to return to the drawing board once again, with a new amended pleading ordered to be filed by each on or before December 1, 2010. In addition, each party's counsel is ordered not only to comply with App'x ¶8 to the State Farm opinion (as already directed in the last paragraph of the Order) but also to send copies of both the Order and ...