IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATURES WAY MARINE, LLC, )

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-316-CG-M

EVERCLEAR OF OHIO, LTD., and 

NIRK MAGNATE HOLDING CORP., 

Defendants.

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on two motions for leave to file a reply. 

Natures Way Marine, LLC (“Natures Way” or “Plaintiff”) twice moved the Court to 

file a reply in support of its motion for prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and 

expenses. (Docs. 214, 216). Natures Way filed its first motion for leave to file a reply 

on December 29, 2014. (Doc. 214). The first motion contained legal arguments and 

affidavits in support of the initial motion for prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, 

and expenses. (Doc. 214). The Court granted the motion and accepted the reply, and 

set forth a time for Everclear of Ohio, Ltd. (“Everclear”), and Nirk Magnate Holding 

Corp. (“Nirk”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to respond to it. (Doc. 215). On December 

30, 2014, Natures Way again moved the Court to file a reply in support of its 

motion, claiming Defendants did not oppose it. (Doc. 216, p. 1). Defendants 

promptly responded and opposed the motion, arguing the second motion is either 

Case 1:12-cv-00316-CG-M Document 220 Filed 01/06/15 Page 1 of 3
2

moot or due to be denied because Natures Way had already filed, and the Court had 

already granted, the first motion and reply. (Doc. 219). After receiving the second 

motion for leave to file a reply from Natures Way and Defendants’ response in 

opposition, the Court rescinded its order granting the first motion. (Doc. 218). The 

Court then advised the parties it would rule simultaneously on the two motions for 

leave to file a reply. (Doc. 214, 216). After careful consideration and for the reasons 

stated below, the first motion for leave to file a reply (Doc. 214) is GRANTED, and

the second motion for leave to file a reply is (Doc. 216) is DENIED.

The first motion for leave to file a reply contains Natures Way’s substantive 

legal arguments in support of its position, explanations of individual time entries, 

and affidavits attached as exhibits. (Doc. 214, Exhs. 1 – 2). In contrast, the second 

motion for leave to file a reply is little more than one page long. (Doc. 216). The

second motion for leave to file a reply does not explain why the Court should grant 

Natures Way’s second request, apart from saying Defendants do not oppose it. (Doc. 

216). Natures Way does not, for example, argue that it needs an extension for good 

cause, or state that it made a fundamental error or omission in its first motion. 

Natures Way simply “requests that it be allowed five (5) days from the entry of the 

Order sustaining the subject motion within which to file its Reply.” (Doc. 216, p. 2). 

Defendants, in fact, oppose the second motion; further weakening Natures Way’s 

tremulous position. (Doc. 219). 

After reviewing the relevant motions and response, the Court finds no reason 

to allow Natures Way leave to file a second or revised reply. Without any 

Case 1:12-cv-00316-CG-M Document 220 Filed 01/06/15 Page 2 of 3
3

information beyond the barebones filing requirements contained in the second

motion, the Court is not persuaded that the second motion for leave to file a reply is 

necessary. Accordingly, Natures Way’s first motion for leave to file a reply in 

support of its motion for prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and expenses is 

GRANTED (Doc. 214), and the second motion for leave to file a reply in support of 

its motion for prejudgment interest, attorneys fees’ and expenses is DENIED. (Doc. 

216). Defendants may file a response to the reply no later than January 13, 2015.

The Court will take the motion under submission on January 14, 2015. 

Once the motion is taken under submission no further responses or replies related 

to the motion for attorneys’ fees may be filed unless the proponent obtains leave of 

court for good cause shown. 

DONE and ORDERED this the 6th day of January, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00316-CG-M Document 220 Filed 01/06/15 Page 3 of 3