HALES v. PRESTON et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
JEREMY B. HALES,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No.: 1:25cv58/RH/ZCB
RICHARD LUTHMANN, JR., et al.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
Defendant 	Helm 	has 	moved 	for 	leave 	to 	reply 	(Doc. 	241) 	to
Plaintiff’s response in opposition (Doc. 238) to Helm’s amended motion
for attorney’s fees (Doc. 221). No response by Plaintiff is necessary.
“A party ordinarily may not file a reply memorandum in support of
a 	motion.” 	N.D. 	Fla. 	Loc. 	R. 	7.1(I). 	Only 	“in 	extraordinary
circumstances” may the Court “grant leave to file a reply memorandum .
. . .” 	Id.
Defendant Helm asserts that a reply is needed to address Plaintiff’s
arguments concerning entitlement to attorney’s fees and applicability of
Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute in federal court. (Doc. 241 at 2). The Court
is confident that it can adequately assess and resolve these issues
without further briefing from either party. 	Thus, the Court finds no
Case 1:25-cv-00058-RH-ZCB Document 243 Filed 09/21/26 Page 1 of 2

2
extraordinary circumstances to warrant a reply by Defendant Helm. See
Grlpwr, LLC v. Rodriguez, No. 3:23cv16480, 2023 WL 6509501, at *1
(N.D. Fla. July 27, 2023) (noting that the standard under Local Rule
7.1(I) “is difficult to meet (as it should be) and it requires more than a
party simply wanting to get the last word on its motion or to point out
something that the Court is capable of discerning on its own without
further briefing”).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant Helm’s motion for
leave to reply (Doc. 241) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of September 2026.
/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00058-RH-ZCB Document 243 Filed 09/21/26 Page 2 of 2