Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equipment, Inc.

E.D. California

Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equipment, Inc.

DecidedMarch 6, 2020

Docket2:16-cv-00148

StatusUnknown

This text of Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equipment, Inc. (Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equipment, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equipment, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADVANCED STEEL RECOVERY, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-00148-KJM-EFB 12 Plaintiff/Counter-defendant, 13 v. ORDER 14 X-BODY EQUIPMENT, et al., 15 Defendant/Counterclaimants. 16 17 Plaintiff Advanced Steel Recovery (“ASR”) moves the court for leave to file 18 supplemental briefing of up to ten additional pages following the court’s hearing on multiple 19 motions held on January 21, 2020. Mot., ECF No. 125. Defendants Oppose. Opp’n, ECF No. 20 127. 21 ASR’s motion attaches its proposed supplemental brief and summarizes its 22 contents briefly in the motion. The supplemental brief attaches no new evidence to support 23 ASR’s motion for summary judgment or oppose defendants’ renewed motion. It consists solely 24 of arguments of law pertaining to the characterization and legal significance of cases discussed at 25 the motion hearing. 26 ASR cites several cases in which a district court granted leave to file supplemental 27 briefing either before or after a hearing on a motion for summary judgment. Mem. P. & A. at 2 28 (citing Carroll v. Yates, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2013); Duhn Oil Tool, 1 Inc. v. Cooper Cameron Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96368 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010); 2 Fahy v. Tarbox, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74841 at *1, 9–10 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2011); Hall v. Apt. 3 Inv.& Mgmt. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156888 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2011)). The court 4 sees no need to distinguish these cases from the one at bar in detail. In brief, the cited cases were 5 situations in which supplemental briefing would either address newly-introduced evidence or 6 legal arguments left undeveloped. This situation is distinct because it appears ASR’s proposed 7 briefing is merely a continuation of arguments made in earlier briefs, as well as at hearing. The 8 court reminds the parties of its earlier statement that the court’s enlargement of brief size was “on 9 the condition that the parties not abuse the court’s trust[.]” Order, ECF No. 43 at 2. The same 10 principle applies here. 11 While the court recognizes ASR’s interest in developing a robust record for review 12 on appeal, the arguments raised in the proposed supplemental brief were sufficiently explored at 13 hearing and in prior briefs. Accordingly, the court DENIES ASR’s motion to file supplemental 14 briefing. This order resolves ECF No. 125. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED 16 DATED: March 5, 2020. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADVANCED STEEL RECOVERY, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-00148-KJM-EFB 12 Plaintiff/Counter-defendant, 13 v. ORDER 14 X-BODY EQUIPMENT, et al., 15 Defendant/Counterclaimants. 16 17 Plaintiff Advanced Steel Recovery (“ASR”) moves the court for leave to file 18 supplemental briefing of up to ten additional pages following the court’s hearing on multiple 19 motions held on January 21, 2020. Mot., ECF No. 125. Defendants Oppose. Opp’n, ECF No. 20 127. 21 ASR’s motion attaches its proposed supplemental brief and summarizes its 22 contents briefly in the motion. The supplemental brief attaches no new evidence to support 23 ASR’s motion for summary judgment or oppose defendants’ renewed motion. It consists solely 24 of arguments of law pertaining to the characterization and legal significance of cases discussed at 25 the motion hearing. 26 ASR cites several cases in which a district court granted leave to file supplemental 27 briefing either before or after a hearing on a motion for summary judgment. Mem. P. & A. at 2 28 (citing Carroll v. Yates, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2013); Duhn Oil Tool, 1 Inc. v. Cooper Cameron Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96368 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010); 2 Fahy v. Tarbox, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74841 at *1, 9–10 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2011); Hall v. Apt. 3 Inv.& Mgmt. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156888 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2011)). The court 4 sees no need to distinguish these cases from the one at bar in detail. In brief, the cited cases were 5 situations in which supplemental briefing would either address newly-introduced evidence or 6 legal arguments left undeveloped. This situation is distinct because it appears ASR’s proposed 7 briefing is merely a continuation of arguments made in earlier briefs, as well as at hearing. The 8 court reminds the parties of its earlier statement that the court’s enlargement of brief size was “on 9 the condition that the parties not abuse the court’s trust[.]” Order, ECF No. 43 at 2. The same 10 principle applies here. 11 While the court recognizes ASR’s interest in developing a robust record for review 12 on appeal, the arguments raised in the proposed supplemental brief were sufficiently explored at 13 hearing and in prior briefs. Accordingly, the court DENIES ASR’s motion to file supplemental 14 briefing. This order resolves ECF No. 125. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED 16 DATED: March 5, 2020. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equipment, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/advanced-steel-recovery-llc-v-x-body-equipment-inc-caed-2020.