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
Defendant Shivinder S. Deol moved for leave to file a surreply to Plaintiffs' surreply, arguing that the Plaintiffs raised new arguments. The Court granted the motion, allowing Deol to file a five-page surreply by August 24, 2026, while instructing the defendant not to rehash previously addressed arguments.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Defendant Shivinder S. Deol's motion for leave to file a surreply“Having considered the Motion, the Court GRANTS Defendant Deol’s ex parte request to file a surreply.” | agree with court The order states that the decision to grant or deny leave to file a surreply is committed to the court's sound discretion and should be exercised in favor of allowing a surreply where a valid reason exists, such as new arguments raised in a reply. The court finds that Deol seeks to respond to new arguments raised in Plaintiffs' surreply. This follows the standard procedural practice in federal courts where a party is permitted to respond to new arguments introduced in an opposing party's reply or surreply to ensure fairness and a complete record. The limitation on page count and the instruction not to retread old arguments are standard conditions to prevent abuse of the process. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the standard of review (sound discretion) and the factors to consider (new arguments, fairness). It applies these factors to the specific facts presented (Deol seeking to respond to new arguments in Plaintiffs' surreply) and reaches a logical conclusion. The conditions imposed (page limit, no retreading) are appropriate to manage the briefing process. The authorities cited are from the same district or neighboring district and are consistent with general federal practice regarding surreplies.
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. 112) 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 Defendant Shivinder S. Deol’s motion for leave to file a response 27 to Plaintiffs Nina Vikhrieva’s and Sergey Leshkov’s surreply. (ECF No. 112.) 28 I A decision to grant or deny leave to file a surreply is generally committed to the 2 || “sound discretion” of the court. See Brady v. Grendene USA, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-0604-GPC- 3 || KSC, 2015 WL 6828400, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2015); United States v. Venture One 4 || Mortg. Corp., No: 13-CV-1872 W (JLB), 2015 WL 12532139, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 5 |}2015). Such discretion “should be exercised in favor of allowing a surreply only where a 6 || valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new 7 |jarguments in its reply brief.” Hill v. England, No. CVFO5869RECTAG, 2005 WL 8 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2005). A court may also permit a surreply “in the interest 9 fairness” even where the “reply brief [1s] largely responsive to issues raised by [the 10 || opposing part] in its opposition” brief. Sherman v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 13CV0041-GPC- 11 || WVG, 2015 WL 5604400, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2015) (permitting defendant to file 12 ||surreply despite plaintiff's characterizations that arguments in the reply were not new). 13 Here, Defendant Deol seeks to file a surreply to respond to new arguments raised in 14 || Plaintiffs’ surreply (“Motion”). (ECF No. 112.) Having considered the Motion, the Court 15 ||} GRANTS Defendant Deol’s ex parte request to file a surreply. (/d.) Defendant Deol may 16 || file a surreply of not more than five pages no later than August 24, 2026. Defendant is 17 || advised not to use this surreply to retread arguments already addressed in its briefing. The 18 || Court will disregard any such arguments. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 DATED: August 17, 2026 (yatlua Bihan H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 23 24 25 26 27 28