Matthew Ledford v. Jack’s Family Restaurants, LP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION MATTHEW LEDFORD PLAINTIFF v. No. 1:25-cv-00062-MPM-DAS JACK’S FAMILY RESTAURANTS, LP DEFENDANT ORDER This matter is before the Court sua sponte. On March 23, 2026, Defendant Jack’s Family Restaurant, LP filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [33] and a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [35], along with supporting briefs [34], [36].

The Local Rules provide that “a motion may not exceed four pages, excluding exhibits;” and that a movant’s original and rebuttal briefs together “may not exceed a total of 35 pages.”

L.U. Civ. R. 7(b)(2)(B), 7(b)(5). Courts have recognized that these page limits are “circumvented” when a party divides related arguments across multiple dispositive motions, each accompanied by a brief that approaches the page limit. See Thomas v. Firerock Prods., LLC, No. 3:13-cv-00109, 2014 WL 12541627, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Oct. 14, 2014) (quoting Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc., No. 06-13345, 2007 WL 1647878, at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 4, 2007)). In such circumstances, “the proper course is to strike the motions and direct the filing of ‘a single consolidated motion and brief in support, combining all … arguments in a single filing.’” Id. (quoting Welker, 2007 WL 1647878, at *1). A single filing, even if slightly over the page limit “is vastly preferable to a profligacy of motions—which … invariably triggers multiple responses and replies, supported by escalating rounds of overlapping arguments and duplicative exhibits.” Id. (quoting Welker, 2007 WL 1647878, at *1).

Here, Jack’s Family Restaurant filed two separate summary-judgment motions [33], [35], each at the four-page limit excluding exhibits, with supporting briefs that together total 35 pages [34], [36]. This filing structure evades the purpose of the Local Rules and invites duplicative briefing.

ACCORDINGLY, Jack’s Family Restaurant’s Motions for Summary Judgment [33] and Partial Summary Judgment [35] are STRICKEN. Jack’s Family Restaurant may refile a single, consolidated motion for summary judgment that complies with the Local Rules. Any refiled motion shall not assert new grounds for summary judgment, include new or different exhibits, or rely on new legal arguments or authorities. As the Bard hath said, “brevity is the soul of wit.”1 Also on March 23, 2026, Defendant Jack’s Family Restaurant filed a Motion to Exclude Opinions of Plaintiff’s Designated Treating Physicians [37]. In response to Defendant’s serial filings, Plaintiff Matthew Ledford moved for an extension of time to respond [39]. Because the Court has STRICKEN motions [33] and [35], the motion for an extension [39] is DENIED IN PART as moot as to those motions and GRANTED IN PART as to the Motion to Exclude [37].

SO ORDERED, this the 26th day of March, 2026. /s/ Michael P. Mills____________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

1 WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, HAMLET act 2, sc. 2, l. 90.