Hall v. Marriott International, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Todd Hall moved for leave to file a supplemental response to Defendant Marriott International, Inc.'s Notice of Supplemental Authority, which the Court found contained improper additional arguments. The Court denied the motion, declining to consider the improper arguments and finding that additional briefing was unnecessary.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Application for Leave to File Supplemental Response to Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Authority“The Court therefore DENIES Motion seeking leave to file a supplemental response to the Notice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the procedural rule that notices of supplemental authority are intended to cite new legal authority, not to introduce new arguments. By declining to consider the improper arguments in the notice, the court effectively neutralized the need for a response, making the denial of leave to file a supplemental response logically consistent and procedurally sound. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the nature of the defect in the Defendant's filing (improper argument in a notice of supplemental authority) and applies the appropriate local and circuit precedent to exclude those arguments. Consequently, the denial of the Plaintiff's request for leave to respond is a logical and efficient resolution that prevents unnecessary briefing on issues the Court has already excluded from consideration.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TODD HALL, individually and on behalf Case No.: 19-CV-1715 JLS (AHG) of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO v. FILE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE 14 TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a 15 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY Delaware corporation, 16 Defendant. (ECF No. 29) 17 18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Todd Hall’s Application for Leave to File 19 Supplemental Response to Defendant’s Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding 20 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [D.E. 28] (“Mot.,” ECF No. 29). 21 While it may be appropriate—under certain circumstances, at least, and preferably with 22 leave of the Court—to file notices of supplemental authority, such notices should not be 23 used as an opportunity to supplement the filing party’s arguments. See, e.g., Wi-LAN Inc. 24 v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 18-CV-01577-H-BGS, 2019 WL 5681622, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 25 1, 2019) (“[The defendant]’s notice of supplemental authority contains improper additional 26 argument in support of its motion.”) (citing Hall v. Shinseki, 717 F.3d 1369, 1373 n.4 (Fed. 27 Cir. 2013); Desper Prod., Inc. v. QSound Labs, Inc., 157 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 28 United States v. LaPierre, 998 F.2d 1460, 1466 n.5 (9th Cir. 1993)). ] To the extent Defendant Marriott International, Inc’s Notice of Supplemental 2 || Authority includes improper, additional arguments in support of its pending Motion to 3 || Dismiss, the Court declines to consider those arguments. Accordingly, the Court does not 4 ||believe that additional briefing is required. The Court therefore DENIES □□□□□□□□□□□ 5 || Motion seeking leave to file a supplemental response to the Notice. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 ||Dated: June 12, 2020 psi L. Lo meeaitie- 9 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28