Inge Van Hees v. BAM Trading Service, Inc.

N.D. California

Inge Van Hees v. BAM Trading Service, Inc.

DecidedOctober 29, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-05685

StatusUnknown

This text of Inge Van Hees v. BAM Trading Service, Inc. (Inge Van Hees v. BAM Trading Service, 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

Inge Van Hees v. BAM Trading Service, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 INGE VAN HEES, Case No. 25-cv-05685-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY

10 BAM TRADING SERVICE, INC., Re: ECF No. 39 Defendant. 11

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Inge Van Hees’ motion for leave to file a sur-reply to 14 “address[] new factual and legal arguments first raised in Defendant’s Reply.” ECF No. 39 at 1. 15 Defendant BAM Trading Service, Inc. opposes the motion on the grounds that its opposition 16 contained no improperly new arguments and that Van Hees’s motion fails to show good cause. 17 ECF No. 44 at 2. 18 “Parties do not have the right to file sur[-]replies and . . . [t]he Court generally views 19 motions for leave to file a sur[-]reply with disfavor.” Garcia v. Biter, 195 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 20 1133–34 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (citing Hill v. England, No. CVF05869 REC TAG, 2005 WL 3031136, 21 at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2005)). “Although the court may in its discretion permit the filing of a sur-reply, 22 this discretion should be exercised in favor of allowing a sur-reply only where a valid reason for 23 such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.” 24 Warren v. City of Chico, No. 2:21-CV-00640-DAD-DMC, 2024 WL 4803960, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 25 Nov. 15, 2024) (citation and quotation omitted). 26 The Court agrees with BAM Trading that no circumstances here warrant a sur-reply. 27 BAM Trading’s reply brief included either arguments that were raised in response to Van Hees’ 1 Suspension Assemblies Antitrust Litig., No. 19-MD-02918-MMC, 2023 WL 1934491, at *1 (N.D. 2 || Cal. Jan. 6, 2023) (denying plantiff's motion for leave to file sur-reply because defendant’s reply 3 only addressed arguments and evidence cited in the opposition brief). 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Van Hees’ request for leave to file a motion for 5 a sur-reply. 6 Dated: October 29, 2025 JON S. TIGAR 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

Z 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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 INGE VAN HEES, Case No. 25-cv-05685-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY

10 BAM TRADING SERVICE, INC., Re: ECF No. 39 Defendant. 11

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Inge Van Hees’ motion for leave to file a sur-reply to 14 “address[] new factual and legal arguments first raised in Defendant’s Reply.” ECF No. 39 at 1. 15 Defendant BAM Trading Service, Inc. opposes the motion on the grounds that its opposition 16 contained no improperly new arguments and that Van Hees’s motion fails to show good cause. 17 ECF No. 44 at 2. 18 “Parties do not have the right to file sur[-]replies and . . . [t]he Court generally views 19 motions for leave to file a sur[-]reply with disfavor.” Garcia v. Biter, 195 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 20 1133–34 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (citing Hill v. England, No. CVF05869 REC TAG, 2005 WL 3031136, 21 at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2005)). “Although the court may in its discretion permit the filing of a sur-reply, 22 this discretion should be exercised in favor of allowing a sur-reply only where a valid reason for 23 such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.” 24 Warren v. City of Chico, No. 2:21-CV-00640-DAD-DMC, 2024 WL 4803960, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 25 Nov. 15, 2024) (citation and quotation omitted). 26 The Court agrees with BAM Trading that no circumstances here warrant a sur-reply. 27 BAM Trading’s reply brief included either arguments that were raised in response to Van Hees’ 1 Suspension Assemblies Antitrust Litig., No. 19-MD-02918-MMC, 2023 WL 1934491, at *1 (N.D. 2 || Cal. Jan. 6, 2023) (denying plantiff's motion for leave to file sur-reply because defendant’s reply 3 only addressed arguments and evidence cited in the opposition brief). 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Van Hees’ request for leave to file a motion for 5 a sur-reply. 6 Dated: October 29, 2025 JON S. TIGAR 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Inge Van Hees v. BAM Trading Service, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inge-van-hees-v-bam-trading-service-inc-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack