Nina Vikhrieva and Sergey Leshkov v. Stemedica Cell Technologies, Inc.; Ziuzhitang Co., Ltd.; Zhuhai Hengqin Jiuzhitang Yonghe Qihang Fund; Jiuzhitang Maker (Beijing) Cell Technology Co., Ltd.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a surreply to Defendant Deol's motion to dismiss, arguing that Deol's reply brief raised new legal arguments regarding standing. The Court granted the motion, allowing Plaintiffs to file a five-page surreply by July 21, 2026, to address the new arguments in the interest of fairness.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Surreply (ECF No. 108) is granted.“Having considered the Motion, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ ex parte request to file a surreply. (ECF No. 108.)” | agree with court The court correctly applied the discretionary standard for granting surreplies. It identified that the opposing party's reply brief introduced new legal arguments (regarding standing) rather than just new evidence, which is a valid basis for granting leave to ensure fairness. The limitation on page count and the warning against retreading old arguments are standard procedural safeguards. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard (sound discretion) and cites relevant district court cases to support the proposition that new arguments in a reply brief justify a surreply. The court's finding that Defendant Deol conceded his reply had legal implications for standing provides a sufficient factual basis for the discretionary ruling. The order is concise and directly addresses the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NINA VIKHRIEVA and SERGEY Case No. 25-cv-00459-BAS-SBC LESHKOV, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ Plaintiffs, 13 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE v. SURREPLY (ECF No. 108) 14 STEMEDICA CELL TECHNOLOGIES, 15 INC.; ZIUZHITANG CO., LTD.; 16 ZHUHAI HENGQIN JIUZHITANG YONGHE QIHANG FUND; 17 JIUZHITANG MAKER (BEIJING) 18 CELL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.; MAYNARD A. HOWE; ROGER J. 19 HOWE; DAVID HOWE; NIKOLAI I. 20 TANKOVICH; DIRK P. O’HARA; SIMON GUO; CRAIG W. CARLSON; 21 MICHAEL K. STEINHAUSER; 22 SANOSTEM GLOBAL, LLC; DUNIYA SANOSTEM, INC.; SHIVINDER S. 23 DEOL, 24 Defendants. 25 26 Before the Court is Plaintiffs Sergey Leshkov and Nina Vikhrieva’s motion to file a 27 surreply (“Motion”) (ECF No. 108) to respond to Defendant Shivinder S. Deol’s motion to 28 1 ||}dismiss (ECF No. 85). Defendant Deol filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion. (ECF 2 || No. 109.) 3 A decision to grant or deny leave to file a surreply is generally committed to the 4 ||“‘sound discretion” of the court. See Brady v. Grendene USA, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-0604-GPC- 5 || KSC, 2015 WL 6828400, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2015); United States v. Venture One 6 || Mortg. Corp., No: 13-CV-1872 W (JLB), 2015 WL 12532139, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 7 |}2015). Such discretion “should be exercised in favor of allowing a surreply only where a 8 || valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new 9 ||arguments in its reply brief.” Hill v. England, No. CVFO5869RECTAG, 2005 WL 10 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2005). A court may also permit a surreply “in the interest 11 fairness” even where the “reply brief [is] largely responsive to issues raised by [the 12 || opposing part] in its opposition” brief. Sherman v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 13CV0041-GPC- 13 || WVG, 2015 WL 5604400, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2015) (permitting defendant to file 14 ||surreply despite plaintiff's characterizations that arguments in the reply were not new). 15 Here, Plaintiffs move to file a surreply so that Plaintiffs can respond to new 16 |/arguments raised in Defendant Deol’s reply in support of Deol’s motion to dismiss. 17 Though Defendant Deol argues that his introduction of a new email itself does not 18 || constitute a “new” argument, Defendant Deol concedes that his analysis of the email in his 19 ||reply has legal implications for Plaintiffs’ ability to maintain standing to maintain their 20 claims against Defendant Deol. (ECF No. 109 at 6:7—18.) Thus, the Court exercises its 21 || discretion to grant leave in the interest of fairness. 22 Having considered the Motion, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ ex parte request to 23 || file a surreply. (ECF No. 108.) Plaintiffs may file a surreply of not more than five pages 24 later than July 21, 2026. Plaintiffs are advised not to use this surreply to retread 25 arguments already addressed in its briefing. The Court will disregard any such arguments. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 28 || DATED: July 7, 2026 (ia. Dvhark Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court