Etoolz, Inc. v. Doctor's Signature Sales Marketing, Inc.

Full title: ETOOLZ, INC., Plaintiff, v. DOCTOR'S SIGNATURE SALES MARKETING, INC., a…

Court: United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

Date published: Jun 7, 2004

Case No. 2:00-CV-00175-B (D. Utah Jun. 7, 2004)

Opinion

Case No. 2:00-CV-00175-B.

June 7, 2004

ORDER

DEE BENSON, Chief Judge, District

Before the Court is Etoolz' Motion to Strike. (Docket No. 152.) Etoolz requests the Court strike Life Force's submission of proposed order and response to Etoolz' objection to Life Force's proposed order ("Submission") because (1) the submission is not permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) Life Force's submitted its filing for an improper purpose. ( Id.) The Court, having considered the parties' briefs, the record, and the relevant law, makes the following Order.

Although Etoolz avers that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure forbid Life Force's Submission the Court was unable to find, in Etoolz' memorandum, legal support for that proposition. That may be because Etoolz is misinformed. Rule 7(b)(1) states that "[a]n application to the court for an order" is a "motion." Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(1). Etoolz' objection to Life Force's proposed order and submission of its own proposed order was, in substance, an application to the Court for an order. See United States v. R.F. Ball Constr. Co., 355 U.S. 587, 593 (1958). As a motion, Etoolz' objection and proposed order invited a response. See DUCivR 7(b)(3). Therefore, Life Force's submission in response to Etoolz' objection and submission was appropriate and authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Etoolz second basis to strike the Submission, namely because it was made for an improper purpose, is unfounded. The Court found Life Force's Submission helpful in determining which proposed order was appropriate. Not only was the Submission helpful but fairness required it. Etoolz objection went through Life Force's proposed order line by line explaining why the Etoolz' proposed order was the more appropriate order. To consider only one party's position is unfair and makes for an uninformed decision. Life Force's Submission was not made in bad faith, but rather to ensure the Court was informed when rendering its decision as to which proposed order was more appropriate.

For the above reasons the Court DENIES Etoolz' motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.