IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 18, 2012
DAVID TOMPKINS; INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT ("PAGA"), PLAINTIFFS,
C & S WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC., A VERMONT CORPORATION; TRACY LOGISTICS, LLC, AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS ENTITY; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
Defendants filed an ex parte application for leave to file a surreply, arguing Plaintiff "improperly makes new legal arguments based upon new assertions not contained in the Complaint or his moving papers." (Defs.' Mot. 2:27-3:1.) However, neither the Local Rules nor the Federal Rules provide the right to file a surreply, and the Court's "discretion should be exercised in favor of allowing a surreply only where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists . . . ." Hill v. England, 2005 WL 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2005). Since Defendants have not shown a valid reason for additional briefing, this application is DENIED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.