Opinion
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY
SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge
Pending before the Court is a Motion by Plaintiffs Gabe Beauperthuy et al. ("Plaintiffs") for Facilitated Notice Pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §216(b). See Docket No. 69. Defendants 24 Hour Fitness et al. have requested Leave to File a Surreply in response to Plaintiffs' Reply submitted in regard to this pending Motion. In support of their request for leave, Defendants point to three sections in Plaintiffs' Reply brief which, Defendants claim, are without corollaries in Plaintiff's Motion brief:
1) arguments regarding positions purportedly taken by Defendants in the Boyce litigation as to whether certain groups met the typicality requirements of Rule
2) arguments regarding the alleged non-payment by Defendants of certain commission payments; and
3) arguments as to whether the statute of limitations issue is an issue for the jury as opposed to the Court. See Defendant's Motion for Leave at 2-3.
The Court finds that these sections present material not raised in Plaintiffs' Motion. The Court will consider this material in making its determination, and so, in the interests of justice, Defendants must be granted an opportunity to respond. See In re Pacific Gas and Elec. Co., C-02-1550 VRW , 2002 WL 32071634, *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2002).
Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants leave to file a surreply of not more than ten (10) pages addressing only the three arguments made in Plaintiffs' Reply which are identified above. The surreply must be filed no later than ten (10) days after the date of this order. The hearing date for Plaintiffs' Motion for Facilitated Motion is hereby reset for February 9, 2007.
IT IS SO ORDERED.