Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:07-cv-01990_de367> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:07-cv-01990_de367 RegisterActionDate "2009-12-02" @default.
- ilnd;;1:07-cv-01990_de367 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey Cole: Motion hearing held. Motion by plaintiff to strike 366 is denied without prejudice. While it is true that materials included in a reply brief that could and should have been included in the opening brief are subject to being stricken, see United States v. Boyle, 484 F.3d 943, 946 (7th Cir. 2007)(arguments are forfeited); United States v. Alhalabi, 443 F.3d 605, 611 (7th Cir. 2006); Carter v. Tennant Co., 383 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 2004), the motion to strike does not provide a single example of how the reply brief offends the rule that prohibits sandbagging by raising arguments for the first time in a reply brief. The motion simply states that that is what occurred. But unsupported statements in briefs and unamplified arguments do not count. See White Eagle Co-opinion Assn v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467, 476 n. 6 (7th Cir. 2009)([s]keletal and unsupported arguments will not be considered and the argument will be deemed waived.); Fabriko Acquisition Corporation v. Prokos, 536 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2008)(Nor does [movant] present any caselaw supporting its theory. It is not the job of this court to develop arguments for [parties].); United States v. Alden, 527 F.3d 653, 664 (7th Cir. 2008)(Because it is not the obligation of this Court to research and construct the legal arguments available to parties,... these arguments are waived and warrant no discussion.); United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir.1991) (We repeatedly have made clear that perfunctory and undeveloped arguments, and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived (even where those arguments raise constitutional issues).). In its present form, it is impossible to determine whether the motion has any merit. Accordingly, it is denied. Mailed notice (lcw, ) (Entered: 12/02/2009)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:07-cv-01990_de367 AdministrativeID "369" @default.
- ilnd;;1:07-cv-01990_de367 OntologyLabel dismiss_without_prejudice @default.
- ilnd;;1:07-cv-01990_de367 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:07-cv-01990_de367 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:07-cv-01990_de364 @default.