From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fraher v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Jun 17, 2021
21-cv-00763-H-JLB (S.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2021)

Opinion

21-cv-00763-H-JLB

06-17-2021

ALYCE FRAHER, Plaintiff, v. VERIZON WIRELESS SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants.


ORDER: (1) SUBMITTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY

[DOC. NO. 15.]

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

On April 21, 2021, Defendant Verizon Wireless Services, LLC (“Defendant”) filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. (Doc. No. 3.) On May 18, 2021, Plaintiff Alyce Fraher (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion to remand the case to state court. (Doc. No. 5.) The parties filed their respective oppositions to each motion on June 7, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 9, 10.) The parties filed their replies on June 14, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 12, 13.) The Court currently has a hearing scheduled for both motions on June 21, 2021. The Court, pursuant to its discretion under Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), determines that the motions are fit for resolution without oral argument, vacates the hearing, and submits the motions on the parties' papers.

On June 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed an ex parte request for leave to file a sur-reply because Defendant submitted additional evidence in its reply. (Doc. No. 15.) “When a party raises new arguments or presents new evidence in a reply to an opposition, the court may allow the other party to address the new arguments or evidence in a sur-reply.” Laub v. Horbaczewski, No. CV 17-6210-JAK (KSX), 2020 WL 5092452, at *1 (CD. Cal. June 24, 2020). But here, the evidence Defendant submitted in its reply is not “new” evidence because it merely responded to evidence that Plaintiff submitted in her opposition. See Edwards v. Toys “R” Us, 527 F.Supp.2d 1197, 1205 n.31 (CD. Cal. 2007) (“Evidence is not ‘new' . . . if it is submitted in direct response to proof adduced in opposition to a motion.” (citation omitted)). As a result, the Court, in its discretion, denies Plaintiffs request to file a sur-reply. The Court will submit the matter on the existing record that complies with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Fraher v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Jun 17, 2021
21-cv-00763-H-JLB (S.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2021)
Case details for

Fraher v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC

Case Details

Full title:ALYCE FRAHER, Plaintiff, v. VERIZON WIRELESS SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware…

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Jun 17, 2021

Citations

21-cv-00763-H-JLB (S.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2021)