Opinion
CV-S-01-509-RLH (RJJ)
May 8, 2002
ORDER (Motion to Strike-#13)
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike Defendants' Reply or in the Alternative Motion for Leave to File Responsive Pleading (#13, filed January 11, 2002). Defendants filed an Opposition (#14) on January 23, 2002.
The Motion to Strike objected to Defendants' Reply (#12) to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (#8), because it raised the fact that the Clark County Code had been amended since the filing of the Motion to Dismiss. The Motion to Strike requested that the Reply be stricken, or in the alternative, that Plaintiffs be given the opportunity to respond to the Reply.
In its Order (#15) filed February 1, 2002, the Court considered the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion to Strike and determined that Plaintiffs should have an opportunity to supplement its opposition and that Defendants should have the opportunity to file a supplemental reply. And the Court so ordered (See Order #15). To the extent that the Court's prior order may not have addressed Plaintiffs motion to strike, the Court hereby makes its ruling clear.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Reply or in the Alternative Motion for Leave to File Responsive Pleading (#13) is denied as to the Motion to Strike and granted as to the Motion for Leave to File Responsive Pleading, as described more specifically in this Court's prior Order (#15) filed February 1, 2002.