Qualcomm Incorporated Securities Litigation v. Qualcomm Incorporated
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
Defendants requested permission to file a sur-reply in opposition to Lead Plaintiffs' anticipated arguments on price impact and to postpone the class certification hearing. The court denied the request without prejudice, finding it premature because the reply brief had not yet been filed.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' request to file a sur-reply is denied without prejudice.“The Court therefore DENIES the motion [Dkt. 229].” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that a sur-reply is only appropriate when the movant raises new arguments in their reply. Since the reply brief had not yet been filed, the request was procedurally premature. Denying without prejudice allows the defendants to renew the motion if the reply contains new arguments. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies that a sur-reply is a discretionary tool used to address new arguments raised in a reply brief. Since the reply brief had not yet been filed, the court's determination that the request was premature is logically consistent with the cited authorities. The denial without prejudice is the appropriate procedural mechanism to preserve the defendants' rights should the reply brief contain new arguments.
Opinion
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 IN RE QUALCOMM CASE NO. 17cv121 JO-MSB INCORPORATED SECURITIES 11 |} LITIGATION ORDER DENYING REQUEST D FOR SUR-REPLY 13 14 15 16 Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated, Derek A. Aberle, Steven R. Altman, Willian 17 ||F. Davidson, Paul E. Jacobs, Steven M. Mollenkopf, and Donald J. Rosenbers 18 ||(collectively, “Defendants”) have requested to file a sur-reply in opposition to any 19 ||arguments Lead Plaintiffs may raise on the issue of price impact in their reply in suppor 20 of their motion for class certification. Dkt. 229. Defendants have also requested to move 21 hearing date from September 14, 2022, to the next available date after September 21 22 2022. 23 For the reasons described below, Defendants’ request to file a sur-reply is deniec 24 || without prejudice. Permitting the filing ofa sur-reply is within the discretion of the distric 25 ||court. Nat’l Cas. Co. v. Nat’l Strength & Conditioning Ass’n, 2020 WL 2991508, at *] 26 |\(S.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). “A district court may allow a surreply to be filed, but only where 27 valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new 28 || arguments in its reply brief.” Daniels v. ComUnity Lending, Inc., 2015 WL 2338713, a 1 || *4(S.D. Cal. May 12, 2015), aff'd, 621 F. App’x 427 (9th Cir. 2015). Here, Lead Plaintiffs 2 ||have yet to file a reply brief, and therefore the proposed sur-reply is premature. Defendants 3 ||may renew their request for a sur-reply after the parties have submitted the scheduled 4 || briefing on class certification. The Court therefore DENIES the motion [Dkt. 229]. 5 6 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 7 |/Dated: 7/1 [2022- 8 Qe 9 10 ee iil Hon. Jinsook Ohta | United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Ellington Daniels v. Comunity Lending, Inc. 15-55794 · 2015-10-23