Harvey v. Advisors Mortgage Group, LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN HARVEY, individually and on Case No.: 21-CV-1048 TWR (AGS) behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S Plaintiffs, 13 EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE v. TO FILE SUR-REPLY 14 ADVISORS MORTGAGE GROUP, LLC; 15 (ECF No. 12) and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Presently before the Court is Defendant Advisors Mortgage Group, LLC’s Ex 19 Parte Motion For Leave to File a Sur-Reply in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to 20 Remand Action to State Court (“Ex Parte Mot.,” ECF No. 12). Neither the Federal Rules 21 of Civil Procedure nor this District’s Local Rules provide a right to file a sur-reply. 22 Rather, “permitting the filing of a sur-reply is within the discretion of the district court.” 23 Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Pac. Surf Designs, Inc., No. 317CV01118BENBLM, 2018 24 WL 3198800, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018). Sur-replies should be allowed “only 25 where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant raises 26 new arguments in its reply brief.” Hill v. England, No. CVF05869RECTAG, 2005 WL 27 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A]n 28 argument is not ‘new’ when it is made in response to an issue raised in an earlier 1 || briefing.” Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Berl, No. CV 17-03767 SJO, 2017 WL 8180627, at *1 2 ||(C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2017) (citing Baloch v. Norton, 517 F. Supp. 2d 345 (D.D.C. 2007)). 3 Here, the Court finds that a sur-reply is not warranted. Defendant does not argue 4 || that Plaintiff introduced any new arguments in his Reply. Instead, Defendant’s proposed 5 ||sur-reply serves only to call attention to a discrepancy in the Parties’ calculation of the 6 |}amount in controversy and to re-iterate the same arguments previously raised in 7 ||Defendant’s Opposition. (See generally ECF No. 12-2 (citing ECF No. 8 at 23).) 8 ||Because Defendants’ calculation of the attorneys’ fees at issue is already before the 9 ||Court, the proposed sur-reply is redundant. The Court therefore DENIES Defendants’ 10 || Ex Parte Motion. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: September 16, 2021 —— ees [5d 1S be Honorable Todd W. Robinson 15 United States District Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28