Smith v. SFM LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Maria Smith, No. 2:21-cv-01030-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Henry’s Holdings, LLC, 1S Defendant. 16 17 The motion to strike portions of the defendant’s reply is denied. See ECF No. 24. The 18 | arguments in question appropriately respond to the plaintiff's opposition. See, e.g., Bruce v. 19 | Woodford, No. 07-00269, 2012 WL 1424166, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2012) (“The purpose of a 20 | reply is to respond to Plaintiff's opposition. . . . [T]he Court will not strike Defendants’ arguments 21 | simply because they were not raised in their motion to dismiss.”). This order resolves 22 | ECF No. 24. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 DATED: November 29, 2021. 25 ee CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE