Mitchell v. Imperato, 2:19-cv-297 WBS EFB. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190603653
Visitors: 20
Filed: May 31, 2019
Latest Update: May 31, 2019
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Before the court is plaintiffs' ex parte application for leave of court to file a surreply or, in the alternative, to strike defendants' reply brief. (Docket No. 46.) Even though the court is required to extend pro se litigants leniency, such leniency "does not extend to permitting surreplies as a matter of course." Garcia v. Biter, 195 F.Supp.3d 1131, 1134 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (O'Neill, J.) ("Parties do not have the right to file surreplies and mot
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Before the court is plaintiffs' ex parte application for leave of court to file a surreply or, in the alternative, to strike defendants' reply brief. (Docket No. 46.) Even though the court is required to extend pro se litigants leniency, such leniency "does not extend to permitting surreplies as a matter of course." Garcia v. Biter, 195 F.Supp.3d 1131, 1134 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (O'Neill, J.) ("Parties do not have the right to file surreplies and moti..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Before the court is plaintiffs' ex parte application for leave of court to file a surreply or, in the alternative, to strike defendants' reply brief. (Docket No. 46.) Even though the court is required to extend pro se litigants leniency, such leniency "does not extend to permitting surreplies as a matter of course." Garcia v. Biter, 195 F.Supp.3d 1131, 1134 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (O'Neill, J.) ("Parties do not have the right to file surreplies and motions are deemed submitted when the time to reply has expired.") (emphasis in original). Accordingly, the court exercises its discretion to deny this motion. See JG v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., 552 F.3d 786, 803 n.14 (9th Cir. 2008). However, to the extent defendant Dayle Imperato improperly raises any arguments for the first time in her reply brief the court will not consider such new arguments in evaluating defendant's motion to dismiss. See JG, 552 F.3d at 803 n.14.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
