Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
BK v NBC, Et Al Motion Strike Responses Redacted

BK v NBC, Et Al Motion Strike Responses Redacted

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,773|Likes:
Published by himself2462
RICO Madness
RICO Madness

More info:

Published by: himself2462 on Jan 25, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/09/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 BRETT KIMBERLIN, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB,
et al
., Defendants
D
EFENDANT
H
OGE
S
M
OTION TO
S
TRIKE
M
ULTIPLE
F
ILINGS BY
P
LAINTIFF
 C
OMES
N
OW
 Defendant William Hoge and hereby moves that this Court to strike Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants Hoge and Walker’s Motions to Dismiss (ECF No. 29), Plaintiffs Response to Defendant DB Capitol Strategies’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30), Plaintiff’s Response to The Franklin Center’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31), and the Notification of Related Court Ruling (ECF No. 32), all filed by Plaintiff on 17 January, 2014. In support of this motion Mr. Hoge states the following: 1. This Court has previously admonished Plaintiff about his failure to serve court papers on Defendant Hoge. He has failed to do so again. 2. Plaintiff filed certificates of service with each of the above cited filings, stating that he served all of them on Defendant Hoge by mail on 17 January, 2013.
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLANDGREENBELT DIVISIONCase No. 13-CV-03059-PWG
 
 3. Defendant Walker received service of the above mentioned filings from Plaintiff on 18 January, 2014, via Priority Mail (Next Day Delivery Guaranteed). The package was postmarked 17 January, 2014. See Exhibit A. 4. Defendant Hoge received normal mail deliveries on 18 January, 2014. No mail was delivered on the 20th because of the holiday. While inclement weather prevented mail delivery to Mr. Hoge’s address on the 21st, mail was delivered on the 22nd and 23rd. Mr. Hoge has not yet received any of the items Plaintiff says he mailed on the 17th. If it had been mailed by similar means as the package to Defendant Walker, service to Mr. Hoge is now several days late. 5. This is not the first time Plaintiff has neglected to serve papers on Defendant Hoge. As the Court noted in its Letter Order dated “January 7, 2014, (ECF No. 26):Here, Defendants Walker and Hoge have identified potential service problems with Plaintiff’s Motion. ... Hoge asserts that, despite Plaintiff’s certification that e-mail service was effected, Hoge was not served at all. The failure to serve a party is no mere technicality. If there were any ambiguity, Plaintiff now is made aware that neither Walker nor Hoge has consented to electronic service, and that Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2) requires
 physical
service—that is, the delivery of a filing in hard copy by hand, mail, or other method expressly approved of in Rule 5—unless a party consents to electronic or other service
in writing 
. Proper service is a prerequisite for filing, and future motions will not be considered in the absence of proper service. 6. While Plaintiff’s responses are not motions as such, they are court papers subject to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Plaintiff’s continuing failure to provide proper service of court papers to Defendant Hoge has been prejudicial to Mr. Hoge’s ability to
2
 
conduct his defense. The delay caused by having to learn via PACER of Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 18) to respond to Mr. Hoge’s motion to dismiss prevented him from filing his opposition before the Court granted the extension. In the case of the four items cited above, five days—roughly a third of the time allowed for Mr. Hoge to respond—elapsed between Plaintiff’s filing on 17 January and the posting on PACER on 22 January. 7. The time has come to put an end to Plaintiff’s cavalier attitude to his obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules. Given that the Court has already granted Plaintiff additional time to file his responses
1
 to the motions to dismiss from Defendants Walker, DB Capitol Strategies, The Franklin Center, and Hoge and given the Court’s admonition to Plaintiff about proper service, the Court should strike the four items cited above and deny Plaintiff any further opportunity to delay the instant lawsuit by filing further responses to the Defendants’ motions to dismiss. W
HEREFORE
, Defendant Hoge asks this Honorable Court to 1.) Strike Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants Hoge and Walker’s Motions to Dismiss (ECF No. 29), Plaintiffs Response to Defendant DB Capitol Strategies’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30), Plaintiff’s Response to The Franklin Center’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31), and the
3
1
 Letter Order dated “December 30, 2013,” ECF No. 21.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->