STEPHANIE JERNIGAN v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY BRASFIELD GORRIE LLC (2026)

ORDER AUTHORIZING LIMITED REPLY

This case is before the Court based on Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply in support of her motion to remand (Doc. 42). The motion is opposed, but the Court sees no reason to hold it for a response because the Court can discern on its own whether “extraordinary circumstances” exist to warrant a reply.

Here, the response to the motion to remand raises a new argument that, in fairness, Plaintiff should have the opportunity to address—i.e., whether (and, if so, how) the Hensgens factors weigh into the Court's consideration of the motion to remand. Thus, Plaintiff will be permitted to file a reply addressing that issue only.

The Court did not overlook that Plaintiff already filed a reply. However, that filing (Doc. 45) and its supporting documents (Doc. 43) are due to be stricken for two reasons. First, those filings violate Local Rule 7.1(I), which unambiguously states that “[w]hen leave to file a reply memorandum is required, a party must obtain leave before tendering the reply memorandum.” (emphasis added). Second, the reply is far from being a “brief, targeted reply” (as the motion claimed) because it spans 16 pages and raises a statute of limitations argument that does not appear to have anything to do with the motion to remand and that was not raised in response to the motion to dismiss.¹

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply (Doc. 42) is GRANTED insofar as Plaintiff has 7 days from the date of this Order to file a reply limited to the issue stated above. The reply may not exceed 3,200 words.

2. The reply (Doc. 45) and its supporting documents (Doc. 43) that Plaintiff already filed are STRICKEN as unauthorized.

DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of July, 2026.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Court did not overlook that the new statute of limitations argument was raised in a “notice of supplemental authority” (Doc. 40), but that notice is procedurally improper because the purpose of a notice of supplemental authority is to bring to the Court's attention new authority that supports a previously made argument, not to make an entirely new argument. See Minus v. Miami-Dade County, 2021 WL 1185683, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 26, 2021) (explaining that supplemental filings should only “direct the Court's attention to legal authority or evidence that was not available” when filing the original brief and that “notices of supplemental authority should not make legal argument”) (citation omitted).

T. KENT WETHERELL, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE