Petricevic v. Shin

Leslie E. Kobayashi, Judge

MINUTE ORDER

Leslie E. Kobayashi, Judge

COURT ACTION: EO: COURT ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE

On October 6, 2021, Defendants Patrick Shin and Nan, Inc. (“Defendants”) filed their Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Stay (“Motion for Summary Judgment”). [Dkt. no. 284.] On November 19, 2021, pro se Plaintiff Bosko Petricevic (“Plaintiff”) filed his memorandum in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. [Dkt. no. 289.] Defendants filed their reply on November 24, 2021. [Dkt. no. 291.]

On November 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Strike or in Alternative Respond to “Defendants Patrick Shin and Nan, Inc.'s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Stay Filed October 6, 2021” - ECF 291 (“Motion to Strike”). [Dkt. no. 292.] Plaintiff's Motion to Strike relies on Local Rule 7.2, which states, in pertinent part: “A reply must respond only to arguments in the opposition. Any arguments raised for the first time in the reply shall be disregarded.” Although Plaintiff argues Defendants raise a new argument in their reply, Plaintiff does not state why that is sufficient to strike the entire reply. Local Rule 7.2 does not address striking a reply because it raises a new argument. Compare Local Rule LR7.2 (stating an untimely reply “may be disregarded by the court or stricken from the record” (emphasis added)). Even if Defendants raise new arguments in their reply, the Court will disregard such arguments in accordance with the Local Rules.

Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike requests an opportunity to respond to the reply, it is improper. After the opposition and reply are filed, “[n]o further or supplemental briefing shall be submitted without leave of court.” Id. (emphasis added). The Motion to Strike includes Plaintiff's response to the reply, and Plaintiff did not seek leave of court to file it. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is DENIED.

The Motion for Summary Judgment remains under advisement, and no further filings regarding the Motion for Summary Judgment will be considered, unless specifically ordered by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Submitted by: Agalelei Elkington, Courtroom Manager 1