Perez v. Trax Retail, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for leave to file a sur-reply concerning Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, dismiss class allegations, and stay PAGA proceedings. The court found that Defendants’ reply did not raise new facts or arguments and that Plaintiffs had already stated their position regarding the alleged unconscionability and unenforceability of the arbitration agreement.

Holdings

1. Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the district's Local Rules provide a litigant a right to file a sur-reply; permission to file one rests within the district court's discretion and requires a valid reason for additional briefing.
2. Plaintiffs were not entitled to file a sur-reply because defendants' reply did not raise new facts or arguments, and plaintiffs had already clarified their position regarding the operative arbitration agreement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs should be permitted to file a sur-reply after defendants identified that plaintiffs had attached an outdated agreement in their opposition.
2. Whether defendants' reply raised new facts or arguments, or otherwise presented a valid reason warranting additional briefing.

Disposition

other