Reported / Citable
Background
Plaintiff Julianna Messner sued defendants Edison Healthcare entities, a physician, and related healthcare providers. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff responded in opposition to the motion to dismiss. However, plaintiff then filed a supplemental response without first obtaining leave of court to do so, exceeding the filings permitted under local court rules.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s supplemental response. Under Western District of Texas Local Court Rule CV-7(E)(1), a party may file a reply in support of a motion, but no further submissions are permitted without leave of court. Plaintiff did not request permission to file her supplemental response, so it violated the rule. Accordingly, the Court struck the filing entirely from the record.
Key Takeaways
- Parties must strictly comply with local court rules governing motion practice and pleading submissions.
- Supplemental filings require express leave of court; permission cannot be assumed or implied.
- Violations of local procedural rules can result in complete striking of a filing, leaving substantive arguments unheard.
Why It Matters
This order underscores that procedural compliance is non-negotiable in federal litigation. Even substantively meritorious arguments can be lost if presented in violation of local court rules. Practitioners must carefully review the applicable district’s local rules before filing any response, reply, or supplemental submission, and must seek leave of court when rules do not explicitly permit a filing.