Jay Thorpe and Kim Thorpe v. WaterTec of Tucson, Inc., an Arizona corporation; A.O. Smith Corporation, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1–10, inclusive

D. Arizona

Jay Thorpe and Kim Thorpe v. WaterTec of Tucson, Inc., an Arizona corporation; A.O. Smith Corporation, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1–10, inclusive

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided September 3, 2026·No. 4:26-cv-00006·Unknown

Opinion

WO Jay Thorpe and Kim Thorpe, No. CV-26-00006-TUC-SHR (EJM)

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

WaterTec of Tucson, Inc., an Arizona corporation; A.O. Smith Corporation, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Defendants. Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Limited Sur-Reply (Doc. 18). Defendant A.O. Smith Corporation has filed a response in opposition (Doc. 22), and no reply was filed. The motion is ripe for review. Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules of this District contemplate the filing of a surreply. A surreply may be warranted when new evidence is presented in a reply. JG v. Douglas County School Dist., 552 F.3d 786, 803 n.14 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Generally, however, “[s]urreplies . . . are highly disfavored, as they usually are a strategic effort by the nonmoving party to have the last word on a matter.” Sims v. Paramount Gold and Silver Corp., No. CV-10-356-PHX-MHM, 2010 WL 5364783, at *8 (D. Ariz. Dec. 21, 2010) (second alteration in original) (citations omitted). “Accordingly, courts will not allow surreplies except in the most extraordinary circumstances.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted) (collecting cases). The issues Plaintiffs seek to address in their surreply are not new evidence and have been 1 sufficiently addressed in their previous filings. See Pls.” Mot. for Remand (Doc. 5); Pls.’ Suppl. Memo in Support of Mot. to Remand (Doc. 9); Pls.’ Reply in Support of Mot. to Remand (Doc. 15); Pls.’ Suppl. Jurisdictional Memo. Re Proc. Defect in Removal (Doc. 16); Pls.” Notice of Suppl. Authority (Doc. 21). As such, “Plaintiff[s] ha[ve] failed to point to any extraordinary circumstances that justify [their] request, and this Court sees none.” Sims, 2010 WL 5364783, at *8. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Limited Sur-Reply (Doc. 18) is DENIED. Dated this 2nd day of September, 2026.

Eric J. Makovich United States Magistrate Judge

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WO Jay Thorpe and Kim Thorpe, No. CV-26-00006-TUC-SHR (EJM)

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

WaterTec of Tucson, Inc., an Arizona corporation; A.O. Smith Corporation, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Defendants. Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Limited Sur-Reply (Doc. 18). Defendant A.O. Smith Corporation has filed a response in opposition (Doc. 22), and no reply was filed. The motion is ripe for review. Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules of this District contemplate the filing of a surreply. A surreply may be warranted when new evidence is presented in a reply. JG v. Douglas County School Dist., 552 F.3d 786, 803 n.14 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Generally, however, “[s]urreplies . . . are highly disfavored, as they usually are a strategic effort by the nonmoving party to have the last word on a matter.” Sims v. Paramount Gold and Silver Corp., No. CV-10-356-PHX-MHM, 2010 WL 5364783, at *8 (D. Ariz. Dec. 21, 2010) (second alteration in original) (citations omitted). “Accordingly, courts will not allow surreplies except in the most extraordinary circumstances.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted) (collecting cases). The issues Plaintiffs seek to address in their surreply are not new evidence and have been 1 sufficiently addressed in their previous filings. See Pls.” Mot. for Remand (Doc. 5); Pls.’ Suppl. Memo in Support of Mot. to Remand (Doc. 9); Pls.’ Reply in Support of Mot. to Remand (Doc. 15); Pls.’ Suppl. Jurisdictional Memo. Re Proc. Defect in Removal (Doc. 16); Pls.” Notice of Suppl. Authority (Doc. 21). As such, “Plaintiff[s] ha[ve] failed to point to any extraordinary circumstances that justify [their] request, and this Court sees none.” Sims, 2010 WL 5364783, at *8. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Limited Sur-Reply (Doc. 18) is DENIED. Dated this 2nd day of September, 2026.

Eric J. Makovich United States Magistrate Judge

-2-

Jay Thorpe and Kim Thorpe v. WaterTec of Tucson, Inc., an Arizona corporation; A.O. Smith Corporation, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, (D. Ariz. 2026).

Pincite

Jay Thorpe and Kim Thorpe v. WaterTec of Tucson, Inc., an Arizona corporation; A.O. Smith Corporation, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1–10, inclusive (Jay Thorpe and Kim Thorpe v. WaterTec of Tucson, Inc., an Arizona corporation; A.O. Smith Corporation, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1–10, inclusive) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related