Holland v. Lions Gate Entertainment and Films

Opinion

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 11/3/2021 CORY HOLLAND SR. aka “KING,” Plaintiff, . 21 Civ. 2944 (AT) -against- LIONSGATE ENTERTAINMENT AND ORDER FILMS, et al., Defendants.

ANALISA TORRES, United States District Judge: The Court is in receipt of parties’ submissions at ECF Nos. 41, 43, and 48-51. The Court finds that ECF Nos. 41, 48, and 49 are sur-replies to the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 19. “The S.D.N.Y. local rules do not contemplate the submission of a sur-reply in further opposition to a motion.” Lazare Kaplan Int’l Inc. v. KBC Bank N.V., 337 F. Supp. 3d 274, 288 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), aff'd, 785 F. App’x 18 (2d Cir. 2019). Even in pro se cases, a Court may strike sur-replies if they are filed without leave of the court. See Colida v. Nokia Am. Corp., No. 05 Civ. 9920, 2006 WL 2597902, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2006). Plaintiff failed to seek leave to file sur-replies to the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s sur-replies, ECF Nos. 41, 48, and 49, shall be struck from the docket. The Court will not accept any additional submissions related to the motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court is directed to strike ECF Nos. 41, 48, and 49 from the docket.

SO ORDERED. Dated: November 3, 2021 New York, New York

ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge