Greenspan v. Musk

Opinion

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AARON JACOB GREENSPAN, Case No. 24-cv-04647-MMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING HEARINGS ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO 9 v. STRIKE/DISMISS; DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR 10 ELON MUSK, et al., LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY

Defendants. 11

13 Before the Court are the following motions, each filed September 30, 2024: (1) 14 defendant X Corp.'s "Motion to Strike or, Alternatively, Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims Against 15 X Corp. Asserted in the Amended Complaint"; (2) defendant Morgan Stanley & Company, 16 LLC's "Special Motion to Strike and Dismiss First Amended Complaint"; and (3) 17 defendants Elon Musk, Tesla, Inc., the Elon Musk Revocable Trust dated July 22, 2003, 18 Excession, LLC, Jared Birchall, Singer Cashman LLP, Allison Huebert, Adam S. 19 Cashman, Adam G. Mehes, and Alex Spiro's "Motion to Strike or, Alternatively, Dismiss 20 Plaintiff’s Claims." Plaintiff has filed an "Omnibus Opposition" as well as a "Corrected 21 Plaintiff's Omnibus Opposition," and the moving defendants have separately replied.1 22

23 1 Plaintiff's "Administrative Motion for Leave to File Sur-reply," filed November 25, 2024, is hereby DENIED, the basis for the requested relief being plaintiff's election to file, 24 in response to defendants' multiple motions, a single opposition, see In re Cloudera, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 19-CV-03221-LHK, 2021 WL 2115303, at *8 n.2 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2021) 25 (holding "[a] sur-reply is appropriate where defendants have raised a new argument or evidence in a reply brief"), and to the extent plaintiff, by his unauthorized "Reply" in 26 support of his administrative motion, (see Civ. L.R. 7-11) (providing for opposition to administrative motions, but not for reply), seeks to bring to the Court's attention a recently 27 decided "relevant judicial opinion," (see Civil L.R. 7-3(d)(2)), the Court now has that 1 Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the 2 || motions, the Court deems the matters appropriate for determination on the parties’ 3 || respective written submissions, and hereby VACATES the hearings scheduled for 4 || January 17, 2025. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 || Dated: December 20, 2024 “ . INE M. CHESNEY 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12

13 ©

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28