Arellano v. Jones
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Raul Arellano, a pro se litigant, moved for leave to file a sur-reply to Defendants' reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss, alleging that Defendants raised new contentions. The Court granted the motion, allowing Plaintiff to file a five-page sur-reply limited to addressing those new contentions by January 19, 2021.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply is granted.“Given that Plaintiff seeks to file a sur-reply for the limited purpose of addressing contentions raised in Defendants’ reply, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that while Local Civil Rules do not explicitly provide for sur-replies, district courts have discretion to allow them when a valid reason exists, such as new arguments raised in a reply brief. The court applied the liberal construction standard for pro se litigants, which is appropriate given the plaintiff's status. The decision to grant leave is within the court's discretion and follows the cited authority. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the lack of a specific local rule for sur-replies but properly invokes the court's inherent discretion to manage briefing. It correctly applies the pro se liberal construction standard to excuse the plaintiff's failure to specify the new contentions. The conditions imposed (page limit, topic limitation, deadline) are reasonable and tailored to the purpose of the sur-reply. There are no significant gaps or questionable reasoning.
Opinion
.
2 3 4 7 . 8 □ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 . 11 |} RAUL ARELLANO, Case No.: 3:20-cv-0228-TWR-RBM D CDCR #AH-1995, Plaintiff | ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 . "| MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 14 JONES; SIHOTANG; DR. MARTIN; SUR-REPLY SANTILLAN; CDCR, 15 Defendants. 16 [Doc. 19] 17 18 On December 1, 2020, Plaintiff Raul Arellano (“Plaintiff”) filed an ex parte Motion 19 || for Leave to File a Sur-Reply (“Motion”) to Defendants’ reply brief in support of their 20 motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (Doc. 19.) The Court accepted the 21 ||Motion nunc pro tunc to November 25, 2020. (Doc. 18.) 22 Plaintiff seeks leave to file a sur-reply on the basis that Defendants allegedly raised 23 ||new contentions in their reply brief for the first time. (Doc. 19 at 1.) Plaintiff does not 24 || specify the new contentions Defendants raised. However, Plaintiffis pro se. See Blaisdell 25 ||v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013) (courts liberally construe pro se litigants’ 26 || filings, relieving them from “strict application of procedural rules and demands that courts 27 28 1 | 1 hold missing or inaccurate legal terminology or muddled draftsmanship against 2 ||them.”). 3 The Local Civil Rules do not provide for the filing of sur-replies. However, it is 4 || within the district court’s discretion to permit or preclude such a filing. See, e.g., United 5 || States ex rel Meyer v. Horizon Health Corp., 565 F.3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 2009) overruled 6 ||on other grounds. The Court may exercise its discretion and allow a movant to file a sur- 7 ||reply “where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant 8 ||raises new arguments in [their] reply brief.” See United States v. Venture One Mortg. 9 || Corp., No. 13-cv-1872-W-JLB, 2015 WL 12532139, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2015); see 10 In re Outlaw Lab., LP Litig., 18-cv-840-GPC-BGS, 2019 WL 1205004, *3 (Mar. 14, 11 ||2019). 12 Given that Plaintiff seeks to file a sur-reply for the limited purpose of addressing 13 contentions raised in Defendants’ reply, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED. □□□□□□□□□□□ 14 ||sur-reply must be submitted no later than January 19, 2020. The sur-reply must be no 15 ||more than five pages in length and must be limited to addressing the new contentions 16 || Defendants raised in their reply brief. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || DATE: December 2, 2020 19. . 20 Ge Laanudepiteneys . IN. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23. 24 25 □ 26 27 : 28 .