Opinion
3:09-CV-0428-LRH-RAM.
April 9, 2010
ORDER
Before the court is third-party plaintiffs' motion to file a sur-reply filed on February 22, 2010. Doc. #41. Third-party plaintiffs seek leave to file a sur-reply to third-party defendants' motion to dismiss arguing that the arguments raised in third-party defendants' reply require additional explanation. Id.
Refers to the court's docket number.
A court has the inherent authority to grant leave to a party to file a sur-reply when the information would be germane to the court's evaluation of a pending matter. See Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Shalala, 177 F.3d 1126, 1129 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, the court has reviewed the papers and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that a sur-reply is unnecessary; the motion has been fully briefed and third-party plaintiffs have filed a thorough opposition of the motion to dismiss. Further, third-party defendants' reply does not raise new arguments warranting a sur-reply.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that third-party plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a sur-reply (Doc. #41) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.