D.C. v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The County of San Diego moved for permission to file a sur-reply to Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, arguing that Plaintiff raised new arguments in his reply and that a settlement offer had lapsed. The court granted the motion, finding good cause for additional briefing and allowing the County to file a three-page sur-reply by December 14, 2020.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant's Ex Parte Motion for Permission to File Sur-Reply is granted.“Therefore, the Court finds good cause and GRANTS the County’s motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the local rule that sur-replies are not authorized but may be permitted at the court's discretion. The court identified two specific reasons for granting the motion: (1) Plaintiff raised a new argument in his reply regarding the applicability of Rule 15 vs. Rule 16, which was not addressed in the opposition; and (2) a material change in circumstances occurred (the lapse of a settlement offer) after briefing closed. These are valid reasons to permit additional briefing to ensure the court has a complete record for decision. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the lack of local rule authority for sur-replies but properly invokes the court's inherent discretion. It cites relevant district court precedent for the standard of review (discretion exercised only for valid reasons). The court then applies that standard to the specific facts: the plaintiff's reply introduced a new legal argument (Rule 15 vs. 16) not addressed in the opposition, and a new factual development (lapsed settlement) occurred. These are classic justifications for permitting a sur-reply to prevent prejudice and ensure a fair adjudication. The limitation to three pages is a reasonable procedural constraint.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 D.C., a minor by and through his Case No.: 15-cv-1868-MMA (NLS) 11 Guardian Ad Litem, Helen Garter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 12 situated, EX PARTE MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE SUR-REPLY 13 Plaintiff, [Doc. No. 115] 14 v. 15 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 On November 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended 19 complaint. See Doc. No. 108. Defendant County of San Diego (the “County”) opposed, 20 to which Plaintiff replied. See Doc. Nos. 109, 113. The County now requests permission 21 to file a sur-reply. See Doc. No. 115. Plaintiff opposes the motion. See Doc. No. 116. 22 The Local Rules do not authorize the filing of a sur-reply. See generally CivLR 23 7.1. That said, District Courts have the discretion to either permit or preclude the filing 24 of a sur-reply upon request. See Johnson v. Wennes, No. 08-CV-1798-L (JMA), 2009 25 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36992, 2009 WL 1161620, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2009). Such 26 discretion “should be exercised in favor of allowing a sur-reply only where a valid reason 27 for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new arguments in its 28 1 ||reply brief.” Estate of Alvarado v. Tackett, No. 13-CV-1202 W (JMA), 2018 U.S. Dist. 2 || LEXIS 34794, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2018). 3 The Court finds that additional briefing is warranted. First, Plaintiff raises a new 4 argument in his reply. Plaintiff’s motion is devoid of Rule 16. See Doc. No. 109. 5 || Instead, he strictly briefs the matter under Rule 15. See id. at 9. In reply, he argues why 6 ||Rule 15, not Rule 16 applies. See Doc. No. 113 p. 3. This is anew argument. Moreover, 7 || according to the County, an incident has occurred since the briefing on Plaintiff's motion 8 ||closed. See Doc. No. 115 at 2. Namely, the County’s settlement offer lapsed. See id. 9 || Whether and how this has any bearing on the merits of Plaintiff’s motion is unclear. But 10 County should be permitted to update the Court, and its argument, accordingly. 11 || Therefore, the Court finds good cause and GRANTS the County’s motion. The County 12 ||may file a three-page maximum sur-reply on or before December 14, 2020. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: December 10, 2020 15 Mika U - Ldillr 16 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 7 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28