Kevin T. Knox v. Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited et al

Filing 56

ORDER ON MOVANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE 48 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. It appears that Erodiades did indeed make several arguments for the first time in this reply brief, including that the Barocios' newly claimed losses were untimely and that Noe Barocio did not execute the original underlying certification. (ECF. no. 41 ) However, because the Barocios substantively responded to both of these points in their Motion to Strike, the Court declines to strike Erodiades' reply and will instead consider the Barocios' Motion as a sur-reply to Erodiades' reply. (lom) Modified on 10/7/2015 (lom).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

KEVIN T. KNOX, individually and on

Case № 2:15-cv-04003-ODW(MRWx)

12

behalf of all others similarly situated,

[c/w: 2:15-cv-04600-ODW (MRWx)]

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

TO STRIKE [48]

15

YINGLI GREEN ENERGY HOLDING

16

COMPANY LIMITED; LIANSHENG

17

MIAO; YIYU WANG,
Defendants.

18
19

BHIMSAIN MANGLA, individually and

20

on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

21
22

v.

23

YINGLI GREEN ENERGY HOLDING

24

COMPANY LIMITED; LIANSHENG

25

MIAO; YIYU WANG,

26
27
28

ORDER ON MOVANT’S MOTION

Defendants.

1

The Court refers to its concurrently-filed Order Consolidating Actions,

2

Appointing Lead Plaintiffs, and Appointing Class Counsel for the background facts of

3

this case. (ECF No. 55.)

4

On August 25, 2015, Movants Noe and Salvador Barocio moved to strike the

5

reply brief submitted by Nicolas Erodiades in support of Erodiades’ Motion to

6

Consolidate Actions and Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Class Counsel. (ECF No. 48.)

7

The Barocios argue that the reply brief should be stricken because Erodiades put

8

forward new evidence and arguments in that brief. (Id.) Erodiades has not filed an

9

opposition to the Motion to Strike, and thus waives any objection to the relief

10

requested therein. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12; Conservation Force v. Salazar, 677 F. Supp.

11

2d 1203, 1211 (N.D. Cal. 2009).

12

It appears that Erodiades did indeed make several arguments for the first time in

13

this reply brief, including that the Barocios’ newly claimed losses were untimely and

14

that Noe Barocio did not execute the original underlying certification. (ECF No. 41.)

15

However, because the Barocios substantively responded to both of these points in

16

their Motion to Strike, the Court declines to strike Erodiades’ reply and will instead

17

consider the Barocios’ Motion as a sur-reply to Erodiades’ reply. See Johnson v.

18

Wennes, No. 08CV1798-L(JMA), 2009 WL 1161620, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2009)

19

(“[T]he Court may in its discretion allow the filing of a sur-reply.”).

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

October 6, 2015

23
24
25
26

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

2