Opinion
21 Civ. 2944 (AT)
11-03-2021
CORY HOLLAND SR. aka “KING, ” Plaintiff, v. LIONSGATE ENTERTAINMENT AND FILMS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
ANALISA TORRES, United States District Judge.
The Court is in receipt of parties' submissions at ECF Nos. 41, 43, and 48-51.
The Court finds that ECF Nos. 41, 48, and 49 are sur-replies to the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 19. “The S.D.N.Y. local rules do not contemplate the submission of a sur-reply in further opposition to a motion.” Lazare Kaplan Int'l Inc. v. KBC Bank N.V., 337 F.Supp.3d 274, 288 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), aff'd, 785 Fed.Appx. 18 (2d Cir. 2019). Even in pro se cases, a Court may strike sur-replies if they are filed without leave of the court. See Colida v. Nokia Am. Corp., No. 05 Civ. 9920, 2006 WL 2597902, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2006). Plaintiff failed to seek leave to file sur-replies to the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Plaintiff's sur-replies, ECF Nos. 41, 48, and 49, shall be struck from the docket.
The Court will not accept any additional submissions related to the motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court is directed to strike ECF Nos. 41, 48, and 49 from the docket.
SO ORDERED. 1