Opinion
23-cv-04549-EJD
01-25-2024
ENOVSYS LLC, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant.
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY
RE: ECF NO. 44
Edward J. Davila United States District Judge
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Enovsys LLC's (“Enovsys”) request for leave to file a sur-reply to Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.'s (“Uber”) motion to dismiss (ECF No. 29) on the grounds that Uber's reply in support of its motion (ECF No. 43) argues a new legal issue and is not responsive to an issue first raised in Enovsys' opposition to Uber's motion (ECF No. 38). See ECF No. 44. Specifically, Enovsys argues that a sur-reply is warranted because Uber “never argued futility” as a basis for seeking dismissal with prejudice or “any other basis why dismissal with prejudice was warranted.” Id.
As Enovsys acknowledges, Uber's motion seeks dismissal with prejudice. ECF No. 29. Uber did not improperly raise new arguments in its reply. Moreover, Enovsys' opposition to Uber's motion makes the same argument and cites the same authority Enovsys now seeks to include in a sur-reply. Compare ECF No. 38 at 24 with ECF No. 44-1 at 1. Enovsys' request for a sur-reply is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.