Colpitts v. Blue Diamond Growers
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-02487
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Colpitts v. Blue Diamond Growers, Judge Cronan denied Blue Diamond’s requests to strike letters about supplemental authority.
Matthew Colpitts and Blue Diamond Growers, particularly the parties’ submissions concerning supplemental legal authority.
What happened
In Colpitts v. Blue Diamond Growers, Blue Diamond Growers asked the court to dismiss Matthew Colpitts’s case. After the motion was fully briefed, both sides submitted letters discussing additional legal authority.
Blue Diamond asked the court to strike Colpitts’s letters, arguing that they raised legal arguments and cases that should have appeared earlier. Blue Diamond also responded to those letters, so the court found it would not be unfair to consider them.
Judge John P. Cronan denied Blue Diamond’s requests to strike the letters and said the court would consider the parties’ additional arguments when deciding the motion to dismiss. The opinion did not decide the motion to dismiss itself.
The detailed version
- Colpitts v. Blue Diamond Growers · No. 1:20-cv-02487
- John Cronan
- Feb. 16, 2021
Background
Blue Diamond Growers filed a motion to dismiss. After the motion was fully briefed, Blue Diamond submitted notices identifying additional legal authority. Matthew Colpitts responded by letter, and Blue Diamond replied. Blue Diamond later submitted another notice of supplemental authority, followed by another response from Colpitts and another reply from Blue Diamond.
Requests to Strike
Blue Diamond asked the court to strike Colpitts’s November 13, 2020 letter and January 27, 2021 response. Blue Diamond argued that those submissions contained improper legal argument and cited cases that Colpitts could have included in his opposition to the motion to dismiss.
Ruling
The court denied Blue Diamond’s requests to strike the two submissions. It explained that parties sometimes submit supplemental authority after briefing is complete and that Blue Diamond had responded to the arguments and cases in Colpitts’s submissions. Because Blue Diamond had an opportunity to respond, the court found that Blue Diamond would not be prejudiced by considering both sides’ post-briefing submissions. The court stated that it would consider those arguments when deciding Blue Diamond’s motion to dismiss. This order did not rule on the motion to dismiss itself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.