Inge Van Hees v. BAM Trading Service, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Plaintiff Inge Van Hees’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply in opposition to BAM Trading Service, Inc.’s motion. The Court concluded that BAM Trading’s reply did not improperly raise new arguments or otherwise warrant additional briefing.

Holdings

1. Parties do not have an automatic right to file sur-replies; a court may allow one in its discretion when a valid reason for additional briefing exists, such as when new arguments are raised in a reply.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff should be granted leave to file a sur-reply based on alleged new factual and legal arguments in Defendant's reply brief.

Disposition

other