Yian Zeng v. Calidi Biotherapeutics, Inc., a Nevada corporation; Calidi Biotherapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Allan J. Camaisa
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Marilyn L. Huff (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved for leave to file a supplemental declaration in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal, arguing it contained information about a new state court case filed by Plaintiff after the federal briefing closed. The Court granted the motion, finding that considering the new information served the interest of justice and did not harm Plaintiff, who had the opportunity to respond.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration is granted.“For the reasons above, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for leave to file its supplemental declaration.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the decision to admit supplemental briefing is within its discretion. It applied the standard that leave should be granted where a valid reason exists, such as new arguments or facts. The court found a valid reason (a new state court filing discovered after briefing closed) and noted that the plaintiff had the opportunity to respond, thus mitigating any prejudice. This follows standard procedural practice in the Ninth Circuit. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the discretionary standard for admitting supplemental briefing. It cites appropriate Ninth Circuit and district court authority. The reasoning is logical: the new information (state court filing) was not available during the initial briefing, and the opposing party had the chance to respond, so no prejudice was shown. The court's decision to look at the 'interest of justice' rather than a 'formulaic rule' is consistent with the broad discretion afforded to district courts in managing their dockets.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YIAN ZENG, Case No.: 3:24-cv-02026-H-GC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 13 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION 14 CALIDI BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC., a TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION Nevada corporation; CALIDI 15 TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC., a Delaware DISMISS 16 corporation; and ALLAN J. CAMAISA, Defendants. 17 [Doc. No. 52] 18 19 On June 1, 2026, Defendants Calidi Biotherapeutics, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation), 20 Calidi Biotherapeutics, Inc. (a Nevada Corporation), and Allan J. Camaisa (collectively, 21 “Defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 40.) On June 2, 2026, 22 Plaintiff Yiang Zeng filed a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, requesting 23 to stay summary judgment proceedings. (Doc. No. 41.) On July 17, 2026, Defendants 24 filed their response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. No. 42.) On July 24, 2026, 25 Plaintiff filed its reply. (Doc. No. 43.) On August 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed its response in 26 opposition to Defendants’ motion. (Doc. No. 45.) On August 12, 2026, the Court took 27 both parties’ motions under submission. (Doc. No. 46.) 28 1 On August 31, 2026, Defendants filed the current motion for leave to file a 2 supplemental declaration to its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 52.) 3 On September 1, 2026, Plaintiff filed its response in opposition. (Doc. No. 53.) On 4 September 2, 2026, Defendants filed their reply. (Doc. No. 54.) For the reasons below, 5 the Court grants Defendants’ motion. 6 Discussion 7 The decision of whether to consider Defendants’ supplemental declaration falls 8 squarely within this Court's discretion. See S.E.C. v. Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1301, 1314 9 (9th Cir. 1982) (“acceptance or rejection of argumentative briefs, memoranda, and other 10 supplementary material is within the sound discretion of the court”). However, leave 11 should only be granted “where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as 12 the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.” Hill v. England, No. 13 CVF05869RECTAG, 2005 WL 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2005); see also Edwards 14 v. Mondora, 700 F. App'x 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2017). 15 Here, Defendants contend that, without oral argument, it would be in the interest of 16 justice to permit the filing of the supplemental declaration of Audie J. de Castro, the 17 attorney of record for Defendants Calidi Nevada and Calidi Delaware. (Doc. No. 52 at 4.) 18 Defendants’ proposed supplemental declaration discusses a new case filed by Plaintiff 19 against Defendant Camaisa in the San Diego Superior Court after briefing on Plaintiff’s 20 motion to dismiss and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment had completed. (See 21 Doc. No. 52-1.) Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss on July 22 17, 2027 and did not learn of Plaintiff’s new case until August 26, 2026. (Doc. No. 52 at 23 3, 4.) Plaintiff opposes the admission of the declaration on the grounds that it does not 24 establish a material fact or change the controlling analysis. (Doc. No. 53 at 2, 3.) 25 Although the Court does not disagree with some of Plaintiff’s contentions, it finds 26 that consideration of the additional declaration is justified under the circumstances. The 27 Court finds the substantive issue in front of the Court—whether dismissal without 28 prejudice causes real legal prejudice to the parties—is best served by having all possible 1 information at its disposal rather than applying a formulaic rule to preclude consideration 2 || of potentially relevant information. Additionally, Plaintiff was able to sufficiently address 3 supplemental declaration, raising both substantive and procedural arguments in their 4 ||opposition. (Doc. No. 53.) Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff suffers no tangible harm 5 || from consideration of the declaration, and the Court will grant Defendants’ motion. 6 Conclusion 7 For the reasons above, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for leave to file its 8 supplemental declaration. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || DATED: September 10, 2026 - [ \uLen | dhl D MARILYN. HUFF, Distri ge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28