Opinion
2:11-cv-02836-GEB-EFB
01-18-2012
DAVID TOMPKINS; individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and on behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Plaintiffs, v. C & S WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC., a Vermont corporation; TRACY LOGISTICS, LLC, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER
Defendants filed an ex parte application for leave to file a surreply, arguing Plaintiff "improperly makes new legal arguments based upon new assertions not contained in the Complaint or his moving papers." (Defs.' Mot. 2:27-3:1.) However, neither the Local Rules nor the Federal Rules provide the right to file a surreply, and the Court's "discretion should be exercised in favor of allowing a surreply only where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists . . . ." Hill v. England, 2005 WL 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2005). Since Defendants have not shown a valid reason for additional briefing, this application is DENIED.
____________________
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge