Trail King Industries, Inc. v. United States

D. South Dakota

Trail King Industries, Inc. v. United States

District Court, D. South Dakota·Decided April 7, 2025·No. 4:24-cv-04164·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

TRAIL KING INDUSTRIES, INC., 4:24-CV-04164-RAL Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR vs. LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Plaintiff Trail King Industries, Inc. moves for leave to file a surreply in opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 23. The District of South Dakota local rules do not contemplate a motion for surreply, so a party must obtain leave of the Court for such filings. See D.S.D. Civ. LR 7.1. Generally, a motion for leave to file a surreply is only granted “to address arguments or evidence raised for the first time in a reply.” Smith v. United States, No. CV 7:20- 094-DCR, 2021 WL 667115, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 19,2021). Defendant’s Reply, Doc. 22, contains a new argument for dismissal, namely that this Court lacks jurisdiction over certain claims, Id. at 12-17. Such argument was not raised in Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 17, or supporting memorandum, Doc. 18. Thus, Plaintiff has not addressed the issue throughout any of its filings. For good cause, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 23, is granted.

DATED this 7th day of April, 2025. BY THE COURT:

ROBERTO A. LANGE CHIEF JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

TRAIL KING INDUSTRIES, INC., 4:24-CV-04164-RAL Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR vs. LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Plaintiff Trail King Industries, Inc. moves for leave to file a surreply in opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 23. The District of South Dakota local rules do not contemplate a motion for surreply, so a party must obtain leave of the Court for such filings. See D.S.D. Civ. LR 7.1. Generally, a motion for leave to file a surreply is only granted “to address arguments or evidence raised for the first time in a reply.” Smith v. United States, No. CV 7:20- 094-DCR, 2021 WL 667115, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 19,2021). Defendant’s Reply, Doc. 22, contains a new argument for dismissal, namely that this Court lacks jurisdiction over certain claims, Id. at 12-17. Such argument was not raised in Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 17, or supporting memorandum, Doc. 18. Thus, Plaintiff has not addressed the issue throughout any of its filings. For good cause, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 23, is granted.

DATED this 7th day of April, 2025. BY THE COURT:

ROBERTO A. LANGE CHIEF JUDGE

Trail King Industries, Inc. v. United States, (D.S.D. 2025).

Pincite

Trail King Industries, Inc. v. United States (Trail King Industries, Inc. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.