Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. v. United Renewable Energy Co., Ltd.

S.D. California

Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. v. United Renewable Energy Co., Ltd.

DecidedJanuary 18, 2024

Docket3:23-cv-02353

StatusUnknown

This text of Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. v. United Renewable Energy Co., Ltd. (Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. v. United Renewable Energy Co., Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. v. United Renewable Energy Co., Ltd., (S.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL Case No.: 23-CV-2353 TWR (DEB) DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a Delaware 12 corporation, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 13 URECO’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE Plaintiff, TO FILE SURREPLY IN 14 v. OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EX 15 PARTE APPLICATION FOR OSC UNITED RENEWABLE ENERGY CO., AND TRO 16 LTD., a Taiwanese corporation dba

URECO; BANK OF AMERICA, National 17 (ECF Nos. 18, 19) Association, a corporation, 18 Defendants. 19

20 Presently before the Court are Defendant United Renewable Energy Co., LTD.’s 21 (“URECO”) Request for Leave to File a Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Ex Parte 22 Application for OSC and TRO, (“Ex Parte Application”), (ECF No. 18, “Mot.”) and 23 Plaintiff Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc.’s Opposition to Defendant URECO’s 24 Request for Leave to File Surreply (ECF No. 19, “Opp.”). Having reviewed the Parties’ 25 submissions and relevant law, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 26 A decision to grant or deny leave to file a surreply is generally committed to the 27 “sound discretion” of the court. See SEC v. Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1301, 1314 (9th 28 Cir. 1982) (“[A]cceptance or rejection of argumentative briefs, memoranda, and other 1 ||supplementary material is within the sound discretion of the court.”). On January 15, 2 2023, Plaintiff replied to URECO’s Opposition to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application. (See 3 || generally ECF No. 16, “Reply”.) In its Reply, Plaintiff raised many novel arguments 4 ||regarding fraud that it had failed to raise in its Ex Parte Application filed on January 15, 5 ||}2024. (Compare id., with ECF No. 3.) URECO now seeks leave to address those new 6 ||arguments in a surreply. (Mot. at 2). If the Court is to consider the new arguments 7 || untimely introduced in Plaintiffs Reply, it is only fair to allow Defendant the opportunity 8 ||to respond. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS URECO leave to file a surreply, not to 9 || exceed five (5) pages, on or before Friday, January 19, 2024. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: January 18, 2024 —_—— 12 | (2 □□□ 13 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 14 United States District Judge 15 16 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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL Case No.: 23-CV-2353 TWR (DEB) DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a Delaware 12 corporation, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 13 URECO’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE Plaintiff, TO FILE SURREPLY IN 14 v. OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EX 15 PARTE APPLICATION FOR OSC UNITED RENEWABLE ENERGY CO., AND TRO 16 LTD., a Taiwanese corporation dba

URECO; BANK OF AMERICA, National 17 (ECF Nos. 18, 19) Association, a corporation, 18 Defendants. 19

20 Presently before the Court are Defendant United Renewable Energy Co., LTD.’s 21 (“URECO”) Request for Leave to File a Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Ex Parte 22 Application for OSC and TRO, (“Ex Parte Application”), (ECF No. 18, “Mot.”) and 23 Plaintiff Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc.’s Opposition to Defendant URECO’s 24 Request for Leave to File Surreply (ECF No. 19, “Opp.”). Having reviewed the Parties’ 25 submissions and relevant law, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 26 A decision to grant or deny leave to file a surreply is generally committed to the 27 “sound discretion” of the court. See SEC v. Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1301, 1314 (9th 28 Cir. 1982) (“[A]cceptance or rejection of argumentative briefs, memoranda, and other 1 ||supplementary material is within the sound discretion of the court.”). On January 15, 2 2023, Plaintiff replied to URECO’s Opposition to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application. (See 3 || generally ECF No. 16, “Reply”.) In its Reply, Plaintiff raised many novel arguments 4 ||regarding fraud that it had failed to raise in its Ex Parte Application filed on January 15, 5 ||}2024. (Compare id., with ECF No. 3.) URECO now seeks leave to address those new 6 ||arguments in a surreply. (Mot. at 2). If the Court is to consider the new arguments 7 || untimely introduced in Plaintiffs Reply, it is only fair to allow Defendant the opportunity 8 ||to respond. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS URECO leave to file a surreply, not to 9 || exceed five (5) pages, on or before Friday, January 19, 2024. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: January 18, 2024 —_—— 12 | (2 □□□ 13 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. v. United Renewable Energy Co., Ltd., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/consolidated-electrical-distributors-inc-v-united-renewable-energy-co-casd-2024.