Alkutkar v. Bumble Inc.

N.D. California

Alkutkar v. Bumble Inc.

DecidedJune 22, 2022

Docket4:22-cv-00422

StatusUnknown

This text of Alkutkar v. Bumble Inc. (Alkutkar v. Bumble Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alkutkar v. Bumble Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 HARSH ALKUTKAR, Case No. 22-cv-00422-PJH 8 Plaintiff,

9 v. ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR 10 BUMBLE INC., et al., LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY AND CONTINUE HEARING 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 38 12

13 14 The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s administrative motion for leave to file a sur-reply 15 in response to what he views as new arguments and evidence presented by defendants 16 in their reply in support of the motion to compel plaintiff to arbitration. See Dkt. 36. 17 Alongside the reply brief, defendants submitted the declaration of Christian Wong with 18 exhibits introducing metadata and other evidence purporting to show plaintiff’s activity on 19 the Bumble app. See Dkt. 36-1. Plaintiff contends that this evidence and the arguments 20 that follow are “crucial” to defendants’ success on their motion to compel arbitration. Dkt. 21 38 at 5. “[A] district court does not abuse its discretion when, before considering new 22 evidence attached to a reply brief, it gives the opposing party an opportunity to respond 23 to the new evidence.” Glass v. Asic N., Inc., 848 F. App’x 255, 257 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing 24 Dutta v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 895 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2018)). Here, the 25 court does not determine conclusively whether the Wong declaration and its exhibits 26 constitute new evidence or constitute a response to plaintiff’s opposition. Rather, in the 27 interest of mitigating any potential unfairness, the court exercises its discretion and allows 1 plaintiff’s request for leave to file a sur-reply. Plaintiff shall file his sur-reply no later than 2 July 7, 2022. The sur-reply may not exceed five pages. The hearing on defendants’ 3 motion to dismiss (Dkt. 28) and defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to arbitration (Dkt. 4 30) is continued to August 4, 2022, at 1:30 PM via Zoom unless, after review of the 5 papers, the court determines that no hearing is necessary. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: June 22, 2022 8 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 9 United States District Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

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

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 HARSH ALKUTKAR, Case No. 22-cv-00422-PJH 8 Plaintiff,

9 v. ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR 10 BUMBLE INC., et al., LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY AND CONTINUE HEARING 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 38 12

13 14 The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s administrative motion for leave to file a sur-reply 15 in response to what he views as new arguments and evidence presented by defendants 16 in their reply in support of the motion to compel plaintiff to arbitration. See Dkt. 36. 17 Alongside the reply brief, defendants submitted the declaration of Christian Wong with 18 exhibits introducing metadata and other evidence purporting to show plaintiff’s activity on 19 the Bumble app. See Dkt. 36-1. Plaintiff contends that this evidence and the arguments 20 that follow are “crucial” to defendants’ success on their motion to compel arbitration. Dkt. 21 38 at 5. “[A] district court does not abuse its discretion when, before considering new 22 evidence attached to a reply brief, it gives the opposing party an opportunity to respond 23 to the new evidence.” Glass v. Asic N., Inc., 848 F. App’x 255, 257 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing 24 Dutta v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 895 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2018)). Here, the 25 court does not determine conclusively whether the Wong declaration and its exhibits 26 constitute new evidence or constitute a response to plaintiff’s opposition. Rather, in the 27 interest of mitigating any potential unfairness, the court exercises its discretion and allows 1 plaintiff’s request for leave to file a sur-reply. Plaintiff shall file his sur-reply no later than 2 July 7, 2022. The sur-reply may not exceed five pages. The hearing on defendants’ 3 motion to dismiss (Dkt. 28) and defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to arbitration (Dkt. 4 30) is continued to August 4, 2022, at 1:30 PM via Zoom unless, after review of the 5 papers, the court determines that no hearing is necessary. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: June 22, 2022 8 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 9 United States District Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Alkutkar v. Bumble Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alkutkar-v-bumble-inc-cand-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack