Arellano v. Jones

Opinion

.

2 3 4 7 . 8 □ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 . 11 |} RAUL ARELLANO, Case No.: 3:20-cv-0228-TWR-RBM D CDCR #AH-1995, Plaintiff | ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 . "| MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 14 JONES; SIHOTANG; DR. MARTIN; SUR-REPLY SANTILLAN; CDCR, 15 Defendants. 16 [Doc. 19] 17 18 On December 1, 2020, Plaintiff Raul Arellano (“Plaintiff”) filed an ex parte Motion 19 || for Leave to File a Sur-Reply (“Motion”) to Defendants’ reply brief in support of their 20 motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (Doc. 19.) The Court accepted the 21 ||Motion nunc pro tunc to November 25, 2020. (Doc. 18.) 22 Plaintiff seeks leave to file a sur-reply on the basis that Defendants allegedly raised 23 ||new contentions in their reply brief for the first time. (Doc. 19 at 1.) Plaintiff does not 24 || specify the new contentions Defendants raised. However, Plaintiffis pro se. See Blaisdell 25 ||v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013) (courts liberally construe pro se litigants’ 26 || filings, relieving them from “strict application of procedural rules and demands that courts 27 28 1 |

1 hold missing or inaccurate legal terminology or muddled draftsmanship against 2 ||them.”). 3 The Local Civil Rules do not provide for the filing of sur-replies. However, it is 4 || within the district court’s discretion to permit or preclude such a filing. See, e.g., United 5 || States ex rel Meyer v. Horizon Health Corp., 565 F.3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 2009) overruled 6 ||on other grounds. The Court may exercise its discretion and allow a movant to file a sur- 7 ||reply “where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant 8 ||raises new arguments in [their] reply brief.” See United States v. Venture One Mortg. 9 || Corp., No. 13-cv-1872-W-JLB, 2015 WL 12532139, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2015); see 10 In re Outlaw Lab., LP Litig., 18-cv-840-GPC-BGS, 2019 WL 1205004, *3 (Mar. 14, 11 ||2019). 12 Given that Plaintiff seeks to file a sur-reply for the limited purpose of addressing 13 contentions raised in Defendants’ reply, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED. □□□□□□□□□□□ 14 ||sur-reply must be submitted no later than January 19, 2020. The sur-reply must be no 15 ||more than five pages in length and must be limited to addressing the new contentions 16 || Defendants raised in their reply brief. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || DATE: December 2, 2020 19. . 20 Ge Laanudepiteneys . IN. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23. 24 25 □ 26 27 : 28 .