Qualcomm Incorporated Securities Litigation v. Qualcomm Incorporated
This text of Qualcomm Incorporated Securities Litigation v. Qualcomm Incorporated (Qualcomm Incorporated Securities Litigation v. Qualcomm Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 IN RE QUALCOMM CASE NO. 17cv121 JO-MSB INCORPORATED SECURITIES 11 |} LITIGATION ORDER DENYING REQUEST D FOR SUR-REPLY 13 14 15 16 Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated, Derek A. Aberle, Steven R. Altman, Willian 17 ||F. Davidson, Paul E. Jacobs, Steven M. Mollenkopf, and Donald J. Rosenbers 18 ||(collectively, “Defendants”) have requested to file a sur-reply in opposition to any 19 ||arguments Lead Plaintiffs may raise on the issue of price impact in their reply in suppor 20 of their motion for class certification. Dkt. 229. Defendants have also requested to move 21 hearing date from September 14, 2022, to the next available date after September 21 22 2022. 23 For the reasons described below, Defendants’ request to file a sur-reply is deniec 24 || without prejudice. Permitting the filing ofa sur-reply is within the discretion of the distric 25 ||court. Nat’l Cas. Co. v. Nat’l Strength & Conditioning Ass’n, 2020 WL 2991508, at *] 26 |\(S.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). “A district court may allow a surreply to be filed, but only where 27 valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new 28 || arguments in its reply brief.” Daniels v. ComUnity Lending, Inc., 2015 WL 2338713, a
1 || *4(S.D. Cal. May 12, 2015), aff'd, 621 F. App’x 427 (9th Cir. 2015). Here, Lead Plaintiffs 2 ||have yet to file a reply brief, and therefore the proposed sur-reply is premature. Defendants 3 ||may renew their request for a sur-reply after the parties have submitted the scheduled 4 || briefing on class certification. The Court therefore DENIES the motion [Dkt. 229]. 5 6 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 7 |/Dated: 7/1 [2022- 8 Qe 9 10 ee iil Hon. Jinsook Ohta | United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Qualcomm Incorporated Securities Litigation v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/qualcomm-incorporated-securities-litigation-v-qualcomm-incorporated-casd-2022.