Accessninja, Inc v. Passninja, Inc et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 24-cv-24745-ALTMAN/Hernandez
ACCESSNINJA, INC. d/b/a
ACCESSGRID,
Plaintiff,
v.
PASSNINJA, INC. and
RICHARD GRUNDY,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
Before us is Plaintiff AccessGrid’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Strike Supplemental Authority
(“Motion”).1 	[ECF No. 229]. 	Plaintiff objects to a “Notice of Supplemental Authorities”
(“Supplement”), [ECF No. 228], submitted by Defendants PassNinja, Inc. and Richard Grundy
(together, “Defendants”). After careful review, we DENY the Motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff and Defendants are competitors in the Near Field Communication (“NFC”) space.
[ECF No. 1 ¶ 3]. NFC passes are “essentially digital ‘tickets’ that can be distributed and scanned at
events, attractions, and experiences.” Id. ¶ 2. This technology can also be used to open physical doors.
Id. Plaintiff accuses Defendants of stealing copyrighted code developed by Plaintiff’s owner in 2023.
Id. ¶¶ 16, 29, 38. Its Complaint asserts both copyright infringement and trade-secret misappropriation
claims against some or all Defendants. Id. ¶¶ 40–63.
1 The Honorable Roy K. Altman referred this case for all pretrial non-dispositive and discovery matters. [ECF
No. 174].
Case 1:24-cv-24745-RKA Document 231 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2026 Page 1 of 4

2
The parties filed motions for summary judgment, [ECF Nos. 188, 193], for which briefing has
concluded. [ECF Nos. 210, 212, 220, 222]. The Court has stayed the case pending resolution of these
potentially dispositive summary-judgment motions. [ECF No. 225].
On September 14, 2026—a little over two weeks after the Court’s stay order and nearly a
month after its summary-judgment reply—Defendants filed the Supplement Plaintiff now seeks to
strike. [ECF No. 228]. The Supplement, though styled as “supplemental authority,” cites no case;
rather, it attaches two exhibits to support facts in the pending summary judgment motions. 	[ECF
Nos. 228-1 & 228-2]. Our Local Rules permit filing new authorities after briefing on a motion has
closed. 	But Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ exhibits are neither “new” nor “authorities,” as
contemplated by the rules. 	[ECF No. 229 at 2]. 	Undermining its position, Plaintiff filed its own
impermissible filing, lodging various objections to the Supplement. [ECF No. 230]. And so, what
began as one rule violation has now morphed into a collateral quasi-motion. That will not do. The
Motion is DENIED, and all parties are advised to consult the Local Rules to ensure compliance.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) empowers a court to strike from a pleading—whether
on its own or upon a party’s motion—“an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter.” 	F ED . R. CIV . P. 12(f)(1)–(2). 	Although styled as a motion to
strike, Plaintiff does not rely on Rule 12(f) for its requested relief. 	Nor can it, because Rule 12(f)
governs motions to strike pleadings and portions of pleadings, see Polite v. Dougherty Cnty. Sch. Sys., 314
F. App’x 180, 184 n.7 (11th Cir. 2008), and the Supplement is not a pleading, see Silva v. Swift, 333
F.R.D. 245, 248 (N.D. Fla. 2019); F ED . R. CIV . P. 7(a). 	Instead, Plaintiff stakes the Motion on a
combination of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and our Local Rules2—neither of which provide
a vehicle for striking a non-pleading.
2 Plaintiff cites Local Rule 7.8, which permits parties to supplement the record “[i]f one or more pertinent and
Case 1:24-cv-24745-RKA Document 231 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2026 Page 2 of 4

3
It is true that a court has inherent powers that are not governed by rule or statute. Chambers v.
NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). These “implied powers must necessarily result to our Courts of
justice from the nature of their institution,” and include the “power to impose silence, respect, and
decorum, in their presence, and submission to their lawful mandates.” Id. (citations omitted). But,
“[b]ecause of their very potency, inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and discretion.” Id.
at 44. And, crucially, the Court’s inherent powers should not be construed as a vehicle for lodging
objections to an opponent’s filings.3
With those principles in mind, two things: first, Plaintiff has compounded the rule violation it
complains of by filing an unauthorized response to the Supplement; 4 and, second, the Court is very
familiar with the Local Rules and its timing provisions. 	The Court is also aware that argument or
evidence untimely presented is likely to be disregarded. See, e.g., Herring v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 397 F.3d
1338, 1342 (11th Cir. 2005) (“As we repeatedly admonished, arguments raised for the first time in a
reply brief are not properly before a reviewing court.” (cleaned up)); Akeo v. Palace Elite Resorts, No.
25-cv-23733-RKA, Dkt. No. 98 (S.D. Fla. May 28, 2026) (denying, as unnecessary, motion to strike
and concluding that untimely arguments simply would not be considered); Martinez v. D2C, LLC, No.
23-cv-21394-RNS, 2024 WL 4367406, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2024) (declining to consider new facts
significant authorities come to a party’s attention after” the close of briefing. Rule 7.1(c)(1) is also relevant
here, providing, “[n]o further or additional memoranda of law shall be filed and served without leave of Court”
after briefing has concluded.
3 Plaintiff cites Brown v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 15-cv-21732-JAL, 2016 WL 8716482, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 13,
2016), and Ctr. Hill Cts. Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Rockhill Ins. Co., No. 19-cv-80111-BB, 2020 WL 419402, at *2 (S.D.
Fla. Jan. 27, 2020), both of which are distinguishable. Brown involved a post-briefing memorandum of law
aimed at circumventing the court’s briefing schedule. The improper filing in Rockhill was part of a pattern of
rule violations. 	Moreover, these cases highlight what we have already discussed: courts have considerable
discretion in striking improper filings from their docket. But they need not do so at a party’s urging—especially
a noncompliant party’s urging.
4 See First Mercury Ins. Co. v. First Fla. Bldg. Corp., No. 20-cv-1929-CEH-MRM, 2022 WL 22881941, at *1 (M.D.
Fla. July 29, 2022) (striking response to a notice of supplemental authority that did not comply with local rules).
Case 1:24-cv-24745-RKA Document 231 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2026 Page 3 of 4

4
presented in reply, where movant “fail[ed] to show that, despite their diligence, they were not able to
access this evidence” prior to initial filing).
Finally, the Court reminds the parties that “[n]either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor
the Local Rules are aspirational.” 	Andreu v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 15-cv-23270-FAM, 2016 WL
1697088, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2016).
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion, [ECF No. 229], is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on September 17, 2026.
_________________________________
YENEY HERNANDEZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: 	counsel of record
Case 1:24-cv-24745-RKA Document 231 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2026 Page 4 of 4