Opinion
Civil No. 05-71804.
November 10, 2005
ORDER ALLOWING FURTHER BRIEFING
In its reply to Plaintiffs' response to its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant raises two new issues: (1) that the addition of the union as a party is barred by the statute of limitations; and (2) that James Cull is not a proper Plaintiff if there is no claim under the Michigan Whistleblower's Act. In part because the opposing party has no opportunity to respond to new arguments, it is not appropriate to raise new claims in a reply brief. United States v. Robinson, 366 F. Supp. 2d 498, 504 (E.D. Mich. 2005). In the interests of judicial efficiency, however, instead of striking the pleading and requiring a refiling of the motion, I invite Plaintiffs to file a response to Defendants' Reply. It shall be due 21 days (11/30/2005) from the date of filing of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED.