Verhines v. Weber

E.D. California

Verhines v. Weber

DecidedFebruary 4, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-01111

StatusUnknown

This text of Verhines v. Weber (Verhines v. Weber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Verhines v. Weber, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ANDREW VERHINES, Case No. 1:24-cv-01111-KES-EPG 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER REGARDING SURREPLY 13 SHIRLEY N. WEBER, (ECF No. 21) 14 Defendant. 15 16 This civil action concerns a challenge to California’s election procedures, and Defendant 17 filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint on January 6, 2025. (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff filed an 18 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). 19 After the reply was filed, Plaintiff filed a “second opposition,” 22 pages in total, to the 20 motion to dismiss on January 31, 2025. (ECF No. 21). However, Plaintiff is advised that his filing 21 is actually a surreply, which is not normally permitted. Thomas v. Wilkinson, No. 1:15-CV- 22 00527-LJO-GSA (PC), 2017 WL 262062, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2017) (“A surreply, or sur- 23 reply, is an additional reply to a motion filed after the motion has already been fully briefed.); 24 Local Rule 230 (permitting an opposition and reply as a matter of course but not a surreply). 25 While a court may exercise its discretion to allow the filing of a surreply, such discretion 26 should be exercised “only where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where 27 the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.” Thomas, 2017 WL 262062, at *1 (internal 28 1 | citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff has not offered any reason to consider his surreply. 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 3 1. If Plaintiff desires to have his surreply considered, he must file a motion by no later than 4 February 13, 2025, providing a valid reason to justify the additional briefing. 5 2. If Plaintiff files such a motion, Defendant shall have 14 days after its service to file any 6 opposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 g | Dated: _ February 4, 2025 [spe ey □□ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ANDREW VERHINES, Case No. 1:24-cv-01111-KES-EPG 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER REGARDING SURREPLY 13 SHIRLEY N. WEBER, (ECF No. 21) 14 Defendant. 15 16 This civil action concerns a challenge to California’s election procedures, and Defendant 17 filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint on January 6, 2025. (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff filed an 18 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). 19 After the reply was filed, Plaintiff filed a “second opposition,” 22 pages in total, to the 20 motion to dismiss on January 31, 2025. (ECF No. 21). However, Plaintiff is advised that his filing 21 is actually a surreply, which is not normally permitted. Thomas v. Wilkinson, No. 1:15-CV- 22 00527-LJO-GSA (PC), 2017 WL 262062, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2017) (“A surreply, or sur- 23 reply, is an additional reply to a motion filed after the motion has already been fully briefed.); 24 Local Rule 230 (permitting an opposition and reply as a matter of course but not a surreply). 25 While a court may exercise its discretion to allow the filing of a surreply, such discretion 26 should be exercised “only where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where 27 the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.” Thomas, 2017 WL 262062, at *1 (internal 28 1 | citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff has not offered any reason to consider his surreply. 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 3 1. If Plaintiff desires to have his surreply considered, he must file a motion by no later than 4 February 13, 2025, providing a valid reason to justify the additional briefing. 5 2. If Plaintiff files such a motion, Defendant shall have 14 days after its service to file any 6 opposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 g | Dated: _ February 4, 2025 [spe ey □□ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Verhines v. Weber, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/verhines-v-weber-caed-2025.