275 Rivulon Boulevard LLC v. American Pacific Mortgage Corporation

Filing 34

ORDER denying 27 Motion to Strike. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff 275 Rivulon Boulevard LLC is permitted to file a sur-reply, not exceeding five pages, narrowly crafted to address the specific issue identified in this Order. This sur-reply must be filed with the Court by February 3, 2025. Plaintiff is not permitted to file an additional statement of facts in support of this sur-reply. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 1/28/25. (MJW)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 275 Rivulon Boulevard, LLC, 9 10 Plaintiff, vs. 11 12 American Pacific Mortgage Corporation, 13 14 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-24-02244-PHX-SPL ORDER 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant’s Reply in 16 Support of Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 27), Defendant’s Response (Doc. 38), and Plaintiff’s 17 Reply (Doc. 29). Plaintiff moves to strike portions of Defendant’s Reply that raise new 18 arguments for the first time. (Doc. 27 at 2). 19 In the Ninth Circuit, it is improper to raise arguments for the first time in a reply 20 brief. Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The district court need not 21 consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.”). 22 Here, Defendant admits that its argument that Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claim 23 should be dismissed because it is duplicative of Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims was 24 first addressed in its Reply brief. (Doc. 28 at 2). This makes Defendant’s argument 25 improper. See Zamani, 491 F.3d at 997. However, while Defendant’s failure to raise the 26 arguments in its initial Motion may justify striking the argument, it also justifies allowing 27 Plaintiff to file a sur-reply. See Mexicanos v. Diamondback Shooting Sports, Inc., No. CIV 28 22-472-TUC-CKJ, 2023 WL 4237495, at *1 (D. Ariz. June 28, 2023); Spinedex Physical 1 Therapy, U.S.A., Inc. v. United Healthcare of Ariz., Inc., No. CV-08-00457-PHX-ROS, 2 2017 WL 11630875, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 29, 2017) (“When a party raises a new argument 3 in reply, the Court will either refuse to consider that new argument, or will grant leave to 4 file a sur-reply to allow the party opposing the motion to contest newly-presented 5 matters.”). 6 Therefore, instead of striking Defendants’ argument as it relates to whether 7 Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment is duplicative of its breach of contract claim, the Court 8 will permit Plaintiff to file a sur-reply to Defendant’s Reply. This sur-reply will only 9 address the legal arguments surrounding the newly raised arguments in Defendant’s Reply 10 and will be narrowly crafted to only address that issue. Plaintiff will not be permitted to 11 file an additional statement of facts in support of this sur-reply. Accordingly, 12 13 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff 275 Rivulon Boulevard LLC’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 27) is denied. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff 275 Rivulon Boulevard LLC is 15 permitted to file a sur-reply, not exceeding five pages, narrowly crafted to address the 16 specific issue identified in this Order. This sur-reply must be filed with the Court by 17 February 3, 2025. Plaintiff is not permitted to file an additional statement of facts in 18 support of this sur-reply. 19 Dated this 28th day of January, 2025. 20 21 22 Honorable Steven P. Logan United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?