Kendall Anderson, et al. v. American Airlines, Inc., et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion for leave to file sur-replies to Defendants' replies in support of their Motions to Dismiss and Transfer Venue. The Court granted the motion, allowing Plaintiffs to file the attached sur-replies within eight pages by July 22, 2026, provided they do not retread previously addressed arguments.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion to File Sur-Reply (ECF No. 77)“The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ ex parte request to file the sur-replies. (ECF No. 77.)” | agree with court The order recites that the decision to allow a sur-reply is committed to the court's sound discretion and should be exercised in favor of allowing one where valid reasons exist, such as new arguments raised in a reply. The court found that Plaintiffs were responding to new arguments raised in AA Defendants' replies. This follows the cited precedent and the procedural posture described. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the standard of review (sound discretion) and the specific criteria for granting leave to file a sur-reply (new arguments or fairness). It applies these criteria to the specific facts that Plaintiffs are responding to new arguments in Defendants' replies. The reasoning is concise and directly supports the grant of the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENDALL ANDERSON, et al., Case No. 25-cv-03609-BAS-MSB Plaintiffs, 12 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 EX PARTE MOTION TO FILE SUR- REPLY (ECF No. 77) 14 AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is an Ex Parte Motion to File Sur-Reply (“Motion”) filed by 18 Plaintiffs Kendall Anderson, Christopher Chodkowski, De’Andre Clark, Andrew Fogel, 19 Ludgy Germain, Disney-Sean Grannell, Juan Hernandez, Jamaal Johnson, Krystall Jones, 20 Adam Khan, Ashley Kumar, Faith Little, Honnah Lusby, Samira McGowan, Ketsia 21 Mianda, Thiago Ortega, Ivana Page, Andrew Pearson, Triston Sanderson, Mathias Thelus, 22 Twenty Cadets. (ECF No. 77.) The Motion requests for leave to file attached sur-replies 23 (ECF Nos. 77-1, 77-2) to Defendants American Airlines, Inc. and American Airlines Group 24 Inc.’s (“AA Defendants”) Motion to Transfer (ECF Nos. 70, 74) and Motion to Dismiss 25 (ECF Nos. 69, 75). 26 A decision to grant or deny leave to file a sur-reply is generally committed to the 27 “sound discretion” of the court. See Brady v. Grendene USA, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-0604-GPC- 28 KSC, 2015 WL 6828400, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2015); United States v. Venture One | || Mortg. Corp., No: 13-CV-1872 W (JLB), 2015 WL 12532139, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2 ||2015). Such discretion “should be exercised in favor of allowing a sur-reply only where a 3 || valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new 4 ||arguments in its reply brief.” Hill v. England, No. CVFOS5869RECTAG, 2005 WL 5 |}3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2005). A court may also permit a sur-reply “in the 6 || interest of fairness” even where the “reply brief [1s] largely responsive to issues raised by 7 || [the opposing part] in its opposition” brief. Sherman v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 13CV0041-GPC- 8 || WVG, 2015 WL 5604400, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2015) (permitting defendant to file 9 ||sur-reply despite plaintiff's characterizations that arguments in the reply were not new). 10 Here, Plaintiffs move to file a sur-reply so that Plaintiffs can respond to new 11 |}arguments raised in AA Defendants’ replies in support of AA Defendants’ Motion to 12 ||Dismiss and Motion to Transfer Venue. Having reviewed the proposed sur-replies and 13 ||considered Plaintiffs’ Motion, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ ex parte request to file the 14 ||sur-replies. (ECF No. 77.) Plaintiffs may file the sur-replies attached to its motion (ECF 15 || Nos. 77-2, 7703) of not more than eight pages no later than July 22, 2026. Plaintiffs are 16 || advised not to use this sur-reply to retread arguments already addressed in its briefing. The 17 Court will disregard any such arguments. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 ||DATED: July 20, 2026 (yi. (Duhark 1 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 22 23 24 25 26 27 28