Paul D. Asmus v. United Airlines, Inc.

N.D. California

Paul D. Asmus v. United Airlines, Inc.

DecidedJune 3, 2026

Docket5:26-cv-00962

StatusUnknown

This text of Paul D. Asmus v. United Airlines, Inc. (Paul D. Asmus v. United Airlines, 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

Paul D. Asmus v. United Airlines, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 PAUL D ASMUS, Case No. 5:26-cv-00962-BLF 8 Plaintiff, V. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY UNITED AIRLINES, INC., 10 [Re: ECF No. 18] Defendant. 1] a 12 Pro se Plaintiff moved to file a sur-reply after Defendant filed its reply in support of its 13 a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 18. Defendant opposes the motion. ECF No. 19. “Once a reply is 14 filed, no additional memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval,” 15 except to object to evidence first proffered in a reply brief or to provide a statement of recent 16 decision. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). “Parties do not have the right to file sur[-]replies and .. . [t]he Court vo (17 generally views motions for leave to file a sur[-]reply with disfavor. Although the court may in its Z 18 discretion permit the filing of a sur-reply, this discretion should be exercised in favor of allowing a 19 sur-reply only where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant 20 raises new arguments in its reply brief.” Van Hees v. BAM Trading Serv., Inc., No. 25-cv-05685- 21 JST, 2025 WL 3026497, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2025) (alterations in original) (internal 22 quotation marks and citations omitted). Plaintiff having failed to establish good cause, the Court 23 DENIES the motion. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: June 3, 2026

27 ETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge

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

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 PAUL D ASMUS, Case No. 5:26-cv-00962-BLF 8 Plaintiff, V. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY UNITED AIRLINES, INC., 10 [Re: ECF No. 18] Defendant. 1] a 12 Pro se Plaintiff moved to file a sur-reply after Defendant filed its reply in support of its 13 a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 18. Defendant opposes the motion. ECF No. 19. “Once a reply is 14 filed, no additional memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval,” 15 except to object to evidence first proffered in a reply brief or to provide a statement of recent 16 decision. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). “Parties do not have the right to file sur[-]replies and .. . [t]he Court vo (17 generally views motions for leave to file a sur[-]reply with disfavor. Although the court may in its Z 18 discretion permit the filing of a sur-reply, this discretion should be exercised in favor of allowing a 19 sur-reply only where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant 20 raises new arguments in its reply brief.” Van Hees v. BAM Trading Serv., Inc., No. 25-cv-05685- 21 JST, 2025 WL 3026497, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2025) (alterations in original) (internal 22 quotation marks and citations omitted). Plaintiff having failed to establish good cause, the Court 23 DENIES the motion. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: June 3, 2026

27 ETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Paul D. Asmus v. United Airlines, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-d-asmus-v-united-airlines-inc-cand-2026.