Smith v. SFM LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 Maria Smith, No. 2:21-cv-01030-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Henry’s Holdings, LLC, 1S Defendant. 16 17 The motion to strike portions of the defendant’s reply is denied. See ECF No. 24. The 18 arguments in question appropriately respond to the plaintiff's opposition. See, e.g., Bruce v. 19 Woodford, No. 07-00269, 2012 WL 1424166, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2012) (“The purpose of a 20 reply is to respond to Plaintiff's opposition. . . . [T]he Court will not strike Defendants’ arguments 21 simply because they were not raised in their motion to dismiss.”). This order resolves 22 ECF No. 24. 24 DATED: November 29, 2021. 25 ee CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE