TOMPKINS v. C & S WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC., 2:11-cv-02836-GEB-EFB. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120120961
Visitors: 17
Filed: Jan. 18, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 18, 2012
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge. Defendants filed an ex parte application for leave to file a surreply, arguing Plaintiff "improperly makes new legal arguments based upon new assertions not contained in the Complaint or his moving papers." (Defs.' Mot. 2:27-3:1.) However, neither the Local Rules nor the Federal Rules provide the right to file a surreply, and the Court's "discretion should be exercised in favor of allowing a surreply only where a valid reason for such additional b
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge. Defendants filed an ex parte application for leave to file a surreply, arguing Plaintiff "improperly makes new legal arguments based upon new assertions not contained in the Complaint or his moving papers." (Defs.' Mot. 2:27-3:1.) However, neither the Local Rules nor the Federal Rules provide the right to file a surreply, and the Court's "discretion should be exercised in favor of allowing a surreply only where a valid reason for such additional br..
More
ORDER
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.
Defendants filed an ex parte application for leave to file a surreply, arguing Plaintiff "improperly makes new legal arguments based upon new assertions not contained in the Complaint or his moving papers." (Defs.' Mot. 2:27-3:1.) However, neither the Local Rules nor the Federal Rules provide the right to file a surreply, and the Court's "discretion should be exercised in favor of allowing a surreply only where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists. . . ." Hill v. England, 2005 WL 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2005). Since Defendants have not shown a valid reason for additional briefing, this application is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
