Opinion
21-CV-1048 TWR (AGS)
09-16-2021
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY (ECF No. 12)
Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Court
Presently before the Court is Defendant Advisors Mortgage Group, LLC's Ex Parte Motion For Leave to File a Sur-Reply in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Action to State Court (“Ex Parte Mot., ” ECF No. 12). Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor this District's Local Rules provide a right to file a sur-reply. Rather, “permitting the filing of a sur-reply is within the discretion of the district court.” Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Pac. Surf Designs, Inc., No. 317CV01118BENBLM, 2018 WL 3198800, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018). Sur-replies should be allowed “only where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.” Hill v. England, No. CVF05869RECTAG, 2005 WL 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A]n argument is not ‘new' when it is made in response to an issue raised in an earlier briefing.” Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Berl, No. CV 17-03767 SJO, 2017 WL 8180627, at *1 (CD. Cal. Oct. 23, 2017) (citing Baloch v. Norton, 517 F.Supp.2d 345 (D.D.C. 2007)).
Here, the Court finds that a sur-reply is not warranted. Defendant does not argue that Plaintiff introduced any new arguments in his Reply. Instead, Defendant's proposed sur-reply serves only to call attention to a discrepancy in the Parties' calculation of the amount in controversy and to re-iterate the same arguments previously raised in Defendant's Opposition. (See generally ECF No. 12-2 (citing ECF No. 8 at 23).) Because Defendants' calculation of the attorneys' fees at issue is already before the Court, the proposed sur-reply is redundant. The Court therefore DENIES Defendants' Ex Parte Motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.