UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAKISHA T. SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

STELLAR RECOVERY, INC. and 

COMCAST CORPORATION, and 

COMCAST OF DETROIT, LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 15-cv-11717 

Hon. Stephen J. Murphy, III 

Hon. Magistrate Mona K. Majzoub 

DEFENDANT STELLAR RECOVERY, INC’S, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO AND 

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S NOTICE 

OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY 

COMES NOW, Defendant, Stellar Recovery, Inc. (“Stellar”), by and through its 

undersigned counsel, and hereby files this Response in Opposition to and Motion to Strike 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Notice of Filing Supplemental Authority [DE 58].

Defendant Stellar properly filed two Notices of Supplemental Authority [DE 56 and DE 

57] (“the Notices”) bringing to the Court’s attention recent and relevant legal precedent issued 

after the close of the dispositive motion briefing schedule. The Notices filed by Defendant are 

unquestionably proper from a procedural standpoint.

In response to the Defendant’s Notices, Plaintiff filed the instant baseless motion to strike, 

which offers no valid legal argument showing why the Notices should be stricken. Instead, Plaintiff 

asserts unfounded arguments about the merits of the authority presented in the Notices and 

improperly seeks to make additional arguments in response to Defendant Stellar Recovery’s 

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [DE 44]. Plaintiff filed her Response to that Motion on 

August 4, 2016 [DE 47]; she did not request (and has made no showing that would warrant) leave 

2:15-cv-11717-SJM-MKM Doc # 60 Filed 09/27/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1730
of court to make these additional and untimely legal arguments. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P 6(b)

(describing the showing that must be made for relief from court ordered deadlines).

Plaintiff’s instant Motion to Strike is, in fact, nothing more than an untimely and improper 

effort to file a supplemental response to Defendant Stellar’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment. Such a supplemental response filed without leave of court is expressly prohibited by 

LR 7.1 (c)(3), which provides “A party must obtain leave of court to file more than one response 

to a motion for summary judgment”. The Court should accept Defendant Stellar’s properly 

submitted supplemental authority and strike the Plaintiff’s unauthorized supplemental response, 

filed under the misnomer of a Motion to Strike Defendant’s Notice of Filing Supplemental 

Authority. See generally Griffin v. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., 2:10-cv-10610 (E.D. Mich. Jan 28, 

2011).

To hold otherwise would discourage parties seeking to inform courts of new applicable 

authorities; that unwelcome and unwarranted outcome would undermine the purpose of allowing 

supplemental authorities to be presented. See Sisk v. Abbott Labs., 1:11-cv-159, at 1 (W.D.N.C. 

Apr. 9, 2012) (“[A] notice of supplemental authority [is] commonly used in the federal court 

system to alert the Court to a decision of another court issued after the close of the briefing period. 

. . . To suggest that a party may not file such a notice and inform the Court of subsequent authority 

is nonsensical.”); Hornor, Townsend & Kent, Inc. v. Hamilton, 1:01-cv-2979 J, at 11 (N.D. Ga. 

Sept. 30, 2004) (“[F]iling notices of supplemental authorities that come to a party's attention after 

briefing is complete is a well-established practice . . . [and] such practice is helpful to the Court, 

which of course always endeavors to apply current authority in resolving the issues before it.”).

WHEREFORE, Defendant Stellar Recovery, Inc. hereby requests that this Court deny 

Plaintiff’s requested relief, and requests that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike [DE 58] be itself stricken 

2:15-cv-11717-SJM-MKM Doc # 60 Filed 09/27/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1731
as improper and untimely additional legal argument filed well outside of the Court-ordered briefing

schedule for dispositive motions in this action. 

Dated this 27th day of September, 2016.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Alison N. Emery

Alison N. Emery

Assurance Law Group

3731 Hendricks Avenue

Jacksonville, FL 32207

904-497-4904 (phone)

904-458-8979 (fax)

alison@assurancelawgroup.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Alison Emery, Counsel for Stellar Recovery, hereby certify that on September 27, 2016 

I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court for the United States District 

Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, using the ECF system which will send 

notification of such filing to the attorneys of record.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Alison N. Emery 

Alison N. Emery

2:15-cv-11717-SJM-MKM Doc # 60 Filed 09/27/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1732