Kleinbrook v. Rio Rancho Police Dept. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JAMES KLEINBROOK,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 24-cv-894 MLG/SCY
UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH
SYSTEM et al.,
Defendants.
OMNIBUS ORDER ON MOTIONS
This matter comes before the Court on a number of pending motions. On August 8, 2025
and September 5, 2025, Defendants University of New Mexico Health System and City of Rio
Rancho filed motions to dismiss. Docs. 30 and 37. Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time
to respond to the motions to dismiss, which the Court grants. Doc. 41. The Court accepts
Plaintiff’s response as timely filed. Doc. 45. The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for clarification
as to the extension of time as moot. Doc. 50.
The Court finds good cause to extend the time to issue the scheduling order pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) and will delay the issuance of its Scheduling Order
pending resolution of the motions to dismiss. The Court stays the deadline to exchange initial
disclosures under Rule 26(a) until issuance of the initial scheduling order. Accordingly, the
Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for clarification as to the applicability of this rule as moot. Doc.
54. The Court will determine the parameters and timing of discovery after the motions to dismiss
are decided.
Finally, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to strike Rio Rancho’s reply in support of its
motion to dismiss. Plaintiff claims Rio Rancho’s reply brief contains errors of law and factual
Case 1:24-cv-00894-MLG-SCY Document 57 Filed 11/05/25 Page 1 of 2

2
assertions. Doc. 51 at 1. This, even if true, does not constitute grounds to strike a reply brief.
“[C]ourts may not resolve disputed and substantial factual or legal issues in deciding a motion to
strike.” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks and alterations omitted). The appropriate vehicle to litigate Plaintiff’s claims
and Defendants’ defenses are dispositive pretrial motions and/or trial, not a motion to strike.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to respond to the motions to dismiss, Doc.
41, is GRANTED;
2. 	Plaintiff’s motion for clarification as to the extension of time, Doc. 50, is
DENIED AS MOOT;
3. 	Plaintiff’s motion for clarification as to the applicability of initial disclosures,
Doc. 54, is DENIED AS MOOT; and
4. 	Plaintiff’s motion to strike Rio Rancho’s reply in support of its motion to dismiss,
Doc. 51, is DENIED.
____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00894-MLG-SCY Document 57 Filed 11/05/25 Page 2 of 2