KIM DALE, Plaintiff, v. HAWKER BEECHCRAFT, Defendant. No. 11-1036-CM. United States District Court, D. Kansas

DALE v. BEECHCRAFT
KIM DALE, Plaintiff,
v.
HAWKER BEECHCRAFT, Defendant.
No. 11-1036-CM.
United States District Court, D. Kansas.

April 6, 2012.

Kim Dale, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Hawker Beechcraft Company, Defendant, represented by Brett D. Legvold, Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, LLP -- Wichita & Terry L. Mann, Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, LLP -- Wichita.

MEMORDANDUM AND ORDER

CARLOS MURGUIA, District Judge.

Defendant Hawker Beechcraft moves to strike plaintiff Kim Dale's response to defendant's second motion to dismiss and the exhibits attached to her response (Doc. 40). Defendant argues that plaintiff's response should be stricken because it discusses the terms of a confidential and irrelevant settlement agreement and that her exhibits should be stricken because the exhibits include an unsigned copy of that settlement agreement. Defendant also moves for sanctions against plaintiff. Specifically, defendant requests that the court sanction plaintiff because she discussed and attached the settlement agreement in bad faith. As a sanction, defendant requests an award of the attorneys' fees incurred in preparing the motion to strike.

Read more:  http://www.leagle.com