PACER ACCT UPDATED
LEGAL UPDATE!
SCHREIBER LOSES ON!!!
APPEAL!!!
Hahaha
“The district court abused its discretion by granting Schreiber’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. After rejecting the argument Schreiber made in his opening brief on the motion, the district court based its decision granting his motion exclusively on the arguments and evidence presented for the first time in his reply brief. It never gave RedHawk a full opportunity to counter Schreiber’s new arguments and then faulted RedHawk for its failure to do so. True, Schreiber attached RedHawk’s 2019 Annual Report to its original brief, and, yes, RedHawk’s response suspected that Schreiber might raise new arguments in a reply. But, as its name suggests, the purpose of a response brief is to respond to the arguments made by the opposing party in its opening brief, not to rebut new arguments that party could conceivably make in its reply. Nor would it have been reasonable for the district court to expect RedHawk to explain how every other transaction listed in its 61-page Annual Report fails to trigger the acceleration provision, particularly when Schreiber specifically relied on only one in his opening brief. Therefore, because the district court denied RedHawk the opportunity to file a surreply to Schreiber’s reply brief that presented new arguments and evidence—and
8
Case: 20-30157 Document: 00515636475 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/12/2020
No. 20-30157 c/w No. 20-30515
then relied solely on those new arguments and evidence as the basis of its order—it abused its discretion. Austin, 864 F.3d at 336.
