GreenCYCLE PAINT, INC. v. PaintCARE, INC., 15-cv-04059-MEJ. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170104706
Visitors: 1
Filed: Jan. 03, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 03, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING PAINTCARE INC.'S MOTION TO FILE REPLY Re: Dkt. No. 69 MARIA-ELENA JAMES , Magistrate Judge . The Court previously ordered Defendant PaintCare Inc. ("PaintCare") to file a supplemental brief to its Motion to Dismiss and ordered Plaintiff GreenCycle Paint, Inc. ("Plaintiff") to file a response. Order, Dkt. No. 66. PaintCare and Plaintiff timely filed these documents. See Suppl. Br., Dkt. No. 67; Suppl. Resp., Dkt. No. 68. PaintCare now moves for leave to file a reply to Plain
Summary: ORDER DENYING PAINTCARE INC.'S MOTION TO FILE REPLY Re: Dkt. No. 69 MARIA-ELENA JAMES , Magistrate Judge . The Court previously ordered Defendant PaintCare Inc. ("PaintCare") to file a supplemental brief to its Motion to Dismiss and ordered Plaintiff GreenCycle Paint, Inc. ("Plaintiff") to file a response. Order, Dkt. No. 66. PaintCare and Plaintiff timely filed these documents. See Suppl. Br., Dkt. No. 67; Suppl. Resp., Dkt. No. 68. PaintCare now moves for leave to file a reply to Plaint..
More
ORDER DENYING PAINTCARE INC.'S MOTION TO FILE REPLY
Re: Dkt. No. 69
MARIA-ELENA JAMES, Magistrate Judge.
The Court previously ordered Defendant PaintCare Inc. ("PaintCare") to file a supplemental brief to its Motion to Dismiss and ordered Plaintiff GreenCycle Paint, Inc. ("Plaintiff") to file a response. Order, Dkt. No. 66. PaintCare and Plaintiff timely filed these documents. See Suppl. Br., Dkt. No. 67; Suppl. Resp., Dkt. No. 68. PaintCare now moves for leave to file a reply to Plaintiff's response. Mot., Dkt. No. 69; Ex. A (Proposed Reply), id. Plaintiff opposes PaintCare's Motion. Opp'n, Dkt. No. 70.
As an initial matter, PaintCare's Motion violates Civil Local Rule 7-11(a) because it does not contain "a stipulation under Civil L.R. 7-12 or [] a declaration that explains why a stipulation could not be obtained." Further, PaintCare does not explain why it could not include the arguments set forth in its proposed Reply in its supplemental brief. Indeed, it appears PaintCare could have done so: PaintCare's supplemental brief consists of only 7 of its allotted 10 pages. See Suppl. Br.; Order at 2. Accordingly, the Court DENIES PaintCare's motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
