Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
1,346 characters extracted
—
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
FOR THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
HALO4ASIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
RIDGEWAY PARKS SERVICE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. RSC-CV-0750
PROPOSED ORDER
PROPOSED ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE
Upon consideration of Defendant Ridgeway Parks Service’s Motion to Strike, Plaintiff’s
Opposition, and the record in this action, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.
2. Rid. R. Civ. P. 12(3) governs striking matter from a pleading. Plaintiff has not filed an
operative supplemental complaint without leave, and Plaintiff’s pending motion and
supporting papers are not rendered strikeable merely because they request leave and
related interim relief.
3. No accepted filing shall be removed from the docket. The legal effect of each paper shall
be determined under the applicable Rules and orders of the Court.
4. Plaintiff’s pending request for leave shall, to the extent necessary, be construed under
Rid. R. Civ. P. 16(6). Any remaining issue concerning a scheduling deadline may be
addressed in resolving that request for leave.
5. Nothing in this Order resolves the merits of Plaintiff’s pending Supplemental Motion or
any proposed supplemental claim.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September __, 2026
_________________________
EffortlessBrit
Superior Court Judge
Ridgeway Superior Court
