United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Plaintiff
City of Bradenton's Motion to Strike the Notice of Filing
Supplemental Authority (Doc. # 18), filed on May 30, 2017.
Defendant Safety National Casualty Corporation responded in
opposition to the Motion. (Doc. # 20). For the reasons that
follow, the Motion is granted and the Notice of Filing
Supplemental Authority is stricken.
February 27, 2017, the Court entered its Case Management and
Scheduling Order, which authorized the filing of motions for
summary judgment on the specific issue of the statute of
limitations. (Doc. # 12). That order specified that “No
reply will be allowed.” (Id. at 1). Safety
National filed its motion for summary judgment as to the
statute of limitations on May 1, 2017, (Doc. # 14), to which
the City responded on May 19, 2017, (Doc. # 16).
Subsequently, on May 26, 2017, Safety National filed a Notice
of Filing Supplemental Authority (Doc. # 17), describing and
attaching copies of five cases that were decided before
Safety National filed its motion for summary judgment.
Notice, Safety National notes that the City also cited some
of the listed cases in its response to the motion for summary
judgment, but Safety National asserts these cases are
distinguishable for reasons stated in the notice.
(Id. at 2-4). For example, in its parenthetical
summation for Oriole Gardens Condominiums, III v.
Independence Casualty & Surety Co., No.
11-60294-CIV, 2012 WL 718803 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 6, 2012), Safety
[R]elied upon by Plaintiff in its Memorandum of Law for the
proposition that a statute of limitations does not begin to
run until all conditions precedent to payment have been
completed or satisfied [see Doc. No. 16, at pp. 7-8];
however, the Oriole Gardens court also distinguishingly noted
that: i) there was no specific denial of the claim contained
within the 2005 letter on which the carrier based its statute
of limitations argument; ii) the carrier admitted that it did
not specifically deny the claim in this 2005 letter, and;
iii) the carrier “clearly invited” the insured to
submit additional information, indicating that the claim was
open and ongoing.
(Doc. # 20 at 2-3)(emphasis added).
City has now filed a motion to strike Safety National's
notice because it was filed without leave and attempts to
circumvent the Court's order that no reply should be
filed. (Doc. # 18). The City stresses that Safety
National's Notice lists cases decided years before the
motion for summary judgment was filed, as well as cases
already cited in the City's response. (Id. at
3); see also Barron v. Snyder's-Lance, Inc., No.
13-62496-CIV, 2014 WL 2686060, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 13,
2014) (stating that a notice of supplemental authority
“should direct the Court's attention to legal
authority or evidence that was not available to the filing
party at the time” that party filed its original brief
and “should not make legal arguments”). The City
argues the Notice violates Local Rule 3.01(c), which provides
that “No party shall file any reply or further
memorandum directed at the motion or response . . . unless
the Court grants leave.” M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(c).
response, Safety National asserts its Notice “does not
introduce new arguments” and “the brief summaries
that follow each citation simply restate relevant facts or
holdings from each opinion.” (Doc. # 20 at 1). The
Court disagrees. Safety National's attempt to distinguish
cases relied upon by the City is a new argument intended to
bolster Safety National's own motion for summary
judgment. Cf. Hodges v. Sch. Bd. of Orange Cty.,
Fla., No. 6:11-cv-135-Orl-36, 2012 WL 5457427, at *4 n.5
(M.D. Fla. Nov. 8, 2012)(“First, as Plaintiffs have
already discussed Umbehr in their Response to
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, it is not a new
authority, for which a notice of supplemental authority is
warranted. Moreover, Defendant cannot raise new arguments in
a Notice of Supplemental Authority, or attempt to file an
additional reply to Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, without leave of
Court.” (internal citations omitted)).
the Notice is a further memorandum for which Safety National
should have sought leave to file. Because Safety National
failed to comply with Local Rule 3.01(c) and the Court
already stated that no reply will be allowed, the City's
Motion to Strike (Doc. # 18) is granted and Safety
National's Notice of Filing Supplemental Authority (Doc.
# 17) is stricken.
ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Plaintiff City of Bradenton's Motion to Strike the Notice
of Filing Supplemental Authority (Doc. # 18) is GRANTED.
Defendant Safety National Casualty Corporation's Notice
of Filing ...