Thompson v. Lemon

Opinion

ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 5/5/2026 KWAINE THOMPSON, Plaintiff, ORDER -against- 23-CV-2102 (JHR) (KHP)

LEMON et al., Defendants.

KATHARINE H. PARKER, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's request for leave to file a surreply is DENIED. (ECF Nos. 184; 185). Surreplies are rarely permitted on a motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss is considered fully briefed once a defendant has filed its motion, the plaintiff has filed its response objecting to the motion and the defendant has filed a reply to that response. (ECF Nos. 156; 157; 160; 161; 166). The defendant is given the opportunity to reply because the defendant bears the burden of proof on a motion to dismiss. The Court may permit a surreply when the defendant has raised new arguments on reply; but where the plaintiff was “on notice” of the defendant’s argument and had ample time to address it, leave to file a surreply is generally denied. Preston Hollow Capital LLC v. Nuveen Asset Mgmt. LLC, 343 F.R.D. 460, 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (denying a party’s request to file a surreply where an issue was in dispute prior to the submission of the surreply); Walker v. Royce, No. 20 Civ. 2386, 2024 WL 1158801, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2024) (finding that surreplies should only be granted where the reply raises “new issues which are material to the disposition of the question before the court” (quoting Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Xia, No. 21 Civ 5350, 2022 WL 2784871, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2022))). The motion to dismiss in this case is now fully briefed, and Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a surreply does not address any new

arguments raised by Defendants in their reply. As a result, Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a surreply is DENIED.

Dated: New York, New York May 5, 2026 SO ORDERED.

CS aiied H (halen KATHARINE H. PARKER United States Magistrate Judge