Sanchez v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA
This text of Sanchez v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA (Sanchez v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA) 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.
Opinion
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Reylene Sanchez, No. CV-21-00896-PHX-JAT
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 JPMorgan Chase Bank NA,
13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court to File Response 16 to Defendant’s Notice of Supplemental Authority. 17 Defendant’s Notice brings to this Court’s attention Bibbs v. Trans Union LLC, a 18 case recently decided in the Third Circuit. Although it would have been better had 19 Defendant simply included a citation to the case without any additional explanation, this 20 Court finds the Notice proper. Thus, a response is not warranted. The one paragraph 21 discussion of Bibbs included in Defendant’s Notice does not contain any argument. All that 22 it does is offer a summary of the holding of the case. Defendant does not apply Bibbs “to 23 the facts of the instant case or even summarize the [Third] … Circuit's holding in an 24 improperly persuasive manner.” Vega v. All My Sons Bus. Dev. LLC, -- F.Supp.3d --, No. 25 CV-20-00284, 2022 WL 294216, at *7 (D. Ariz. Feb. 1, 2022). The interests of fairness do 26 not necessitate allowing a response. 27 In addition, Plaintiff’s Response improperly includes argument, as it attempts to 28 distinguish the facts of Bibbs from this case. Including argument in a Response to a Notice □□ of Supplemental Authority that does not itself include argument is improper. See ThermoLife International LLC v. Aesthetic Distribution, LLC, No. CV-19-02048, at *1 n. 3|| 2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 7, 2020). Consequently, for this reason the Court will not grant Plaintiffs motion. 5 IT ID ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of the Court to File Response 6 || to Defendant’s Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. 63) is hereby DENIED. 7 Dated this 29th day of August, 2022. 8 ? ' 10 a _< , C “ James A. Teilborg 1] Senior United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
_2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Sanchez v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-v-jpmorgan-chase-bank-na-azd-2022.