Junior J. Aguilar v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.

D. Arizona

Junior J. Aguilar v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.

DecidedOctober 30, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-00056

StatusUnknown

This text of Junior J. Aguilar v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. (Junior J. Aguilar v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Junior J. Aguilar v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., (D. Ariz. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Junior J. Aguilar, No. CV-25-00056-TUC-EJM 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER

12 Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., 13 14 Defendants. 15 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Short Sur-Reply 16 (≤ 5 Pages) Limited to New Matters Raised in the Defendants’ Reply (Doc. 28) (“Motion 17 for Surreply”) (Doc. 30) and Request for Judicial Notice in Support of [Lodged] Sur-Reply 18 (Doc. 32). Defendants filed a combined response in opposition to both motions and 19 Plaintiff did not reply. See Defs.’ Combined Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion 20 for Leave to File Sur-Reply and Related Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Sur- 21 Reply (Doc. 36). The Court will deny both motions. 22 23 A. Motion for Surreply 24 Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules of this District 25 contemplate the filing of a surreply. A surreply may be warranted when new evidence is 26 presented in a reply. JG v. Douglas County School Dist., 552 F.3d 786, 803 n.14 (9th Cir. 27 2008) (citations omitted). Generally, however, “[s]urreplies . . . are highly disfavored, as 28 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 2|| 5364783, at *8 (D. Ariz. Dec. 21, 2010) (second alteration in original) (citations omitted). 3|| “Accordingly, courts will not allow surreplies except in the most extraordinary circumstances.” J/d. (internal quotations and citations omitted) (collecting cases). The 5 || issues Plaintiff seeks to address in his surreply are not new evidence, rather they were || responsive to Plaintiff's arguments against Defendant’s motion to dismiss. As such, 7\| “Plaintiff has failed to point to any extraordinary circumstances that justify his request, and 8 || this Court sees none.” Sims, 2010 WL 5364783, at *8. Plaintiffs motion for surreply 9|| (Doc. 30) is denied. 10 11} B. Motion for Judicial Notice 12 Plaintiff also seeks judicial notice of documents that he submits in support of his 13 || proposed surreply. Pl.’s Mot. for Judicial Notice in Support of [Lodged] Sur-Reply (Doc. 32) (“The text is pertinent to the Court’s consideration of procedures referenced in Plaintiffs [lodged] sur-reply.”). Because the Court has denied Plaintiff leave to file a sur- || reply, the documents proffered are unnecessary. As such, Plaintiff's motion for judicial || notice (Doc. 32) is denied. 18 C. Conclusion 20 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Short Sur-Reply (< 5 Pages) Limited to New Matters Raised in the Defendants’ || Reply (Doc. 30) is DENIED. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice in Support of 24 || [Lodged] Sur-Reply (Doc. 32) is DENIED. 25 Dated this 30th day of October, 2025.

28 Eric J. MafKovich United States Magistrate Judge

_2-

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

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Junior J. Aguilar, No. CV-25-00056-TUC-EJM 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER

12 Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., 13 14 Defendants. 15 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Short Sur-Reply 16 (≤ 5 Pages) Limited to New Matters Raised in the Defendants’ Reply (Doc. 28) (“Motion 17 for Surreply”) (Doc. 30) and Request for Judicial Notice in Support of [Lodged] Sur-Reply 18 (Doc. 32). Defendants filed a combined response in opposition to both motions and 19 Plaintiff did not reply. See Defs.’ Combined Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion 20 for Leave to File Sur-Reply and Related Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Sur- 21 Reply (Doc. 36). The Court will deny both motions. 22 23 A. Motion for Surreply 24 Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules of this District 25 contemplate the filing of a surreply. A surreply may be warranted when new evidence is 26 presented in a reply. JG v. Douglas County School Dist., 552 F.3d 786, 803 n.14 (9th Cir. 27 2008) (citations omitted). Generally, however, “[s]urreplies . . . are highly disfavored, as 28 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 2|| 5364783, at *8 (D. Ariz. Dec. 21, 2010) (second alteration in original) (citations omitted). 3|| “Accordingly, courts will not allow surreplies except in the most extraordinary circumstances.” J/d. (internal quotations and citations omitted) (collecting cases). The 5 || issues Plaintiff seeks to address in his surreply are not new evidence, rather they were || responsive to Plaintiff's arguments against Defendant’s motion to dismiss. As such, 7\| “Plaintiff has failed to point to any extraordinary circumstances that justify his request, and 8 || this Court sees none.” Sims, 2010 WL 5364783, at *8. Plaintiffs motion for surreply 9|| (Doc. 30) is denied. 10 11} B. Motion for Judicial Notice 12 Plaintiff also seeks judicial notice of documents that he submits in support of his 13 || proposed surreply. Pl.’s Mot. for Judicial Notice in Support of [Lodged] Sur-Reply (Doc. 32) (“The text is pertinent to the Court’s consideration of procedures referenced in Plaintiffs [lodged] sur-reply.”). Because the Court has denied Plaintiff leave to file a sur- || reply, the documents proffered are unnecessary. As such, Plaintiff's motion for judicial || notice (Doc. 32) is denied. 18 C. Conclusion 20 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Short Sur-Reply (< 5 Pages) Limited to New Matters Raised in the Defendants’ || Reply (Doc. 30) is DENIED. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice in Support of 24 || [Lodged] Sur-Reply (Doc. 32) is DENIED. 25 Dated this 30th day of October, 2025.

28 Eric J. MafKovich United States Magistrate Judge

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Junior J. Aguilar v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/junior-j-aguilar-v-kristi-noem-secretary-of-homeland-security-et-al-azd-2025.