Verhines v. Weber

Opinion

ANDREW VERHINES, Case No. 1:24-cv-01111-KES-EPG Plaintiff, v. ORDER REGARDING SURREPLY SHIRLEY N. WEBER, (ECF No. 21) Defendant. This civil action concerns a challenge to California’s election procedures, and Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint on January 6, 2025. (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 16, 2025, and Defendant filed a reply on January 27, 2025. (ECF Nos. 18, 20). The assigned District Judge has referred the motion to the undersigned. (ECF No. 17). After the reply was filed, Plaintiff filed a “second opposition,” 22 pages in total, to the motion to dismiss on January 31, 2025. (ECF No. 21). However, Plaintiff is advised that his filing is actually a surreply, which is not normally permitted. Thomas v. Wilkinson, No. 1:15-CV- 00527-LJO-GSA (PC), 2017 WL 262062, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2017) (“A surreply, or sur- reply, is an additional reply to a motion filed after the motion has already been fully briefed.); Local Rule 230 (permitting an opposition and reply as a matter of course but not a surreply). While a court may exercise its discretion to allow the filing of a surreply, such discretion should be exercised “only where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.” Thomas, 2017 WL 262062, at *1 (internal citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff has not offered any reason to consider his surreply. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. If Plaintiff desires to have his surreply considered, he must file a motion by no later than February 13, 2025, providing a valid reason to justify the additional briefing. 2. If Plaintiff files such a motion, Defendant shall have 14 days after its service to file any opposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED. g | Dated: _ February 4, 2025 [spe ey □□ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE