Larson v. Harman-Management Corporation et al

Filing 153

ORDER Denying Defendant Harman-Management Corporation's 148 Motion to Strike, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/28/2018. (1. Defendant Harman-Management Corporation's motion to strike plaintiffs response to HMC's supplemental authority (Doc. No. 148) is denied; 2. Defendant Harman-Management Corporation is granted leave to file a reply in support of its motion to strike within seven days of this order.) (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CORY LARSON, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 1: 16-cv-00219-DAD-SKO

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
HARMAN-MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION’S MOTION TO STRIKE

v.
HARMAN-MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION and 3SEVENTY, INC.,

16

(Doc. No. 148)

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff Cory Larson (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Harman-Management

19

Corporation and 3Seventy, Inc. (“defendants”) on February 17, 2016, alleging violations of the

20

Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (the “TCPA”). (Doc. No. 1.) On

21

May 15, 2018, the parties appeared for a hearing on plaintiff’s motion for class certification (Doc.

22

No. 98), defendant 3Seventy, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 101), and defendant

23

Harman-Management Corporation’s (“HMC”) motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 128).

24

Following that hearing, defendant HMC filed a notice of supplemental authority on May 17,

25

2018. (Doc. No. 146.) Plaintiff filed a response to the supplemental authority on May 22, 2018.

26

(Doc. No. 147.)

27
28

On May 24, 2018, defendant HMC filed a motion to strike plaintiff’s response to HMC’s
supplemental authority. (Doc. No. 148.) Defendant HMC argues that plaintiff’s response to
1

1

HMC’s supplemental authority constitutes an impermissible surreply in violation of Local Rule

2

230 and should thus be stricken. (Id. at 2–3.) In the alternative, defendant HMC requested leave

3

to file a reply. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to strike on June 7, 2018,

4

stating that there is no authority that would permit defendant HMC to “file a Notice of

5

Supplemental Authority, but prohibits an opposing party from responding to the same.” (Doc.

6

No. 149 at 3.) However, plaintiff does not oppose defendant HMC’s request to file a reply. (Id.

7

at 4.)

8

Local Rule 230 provides that an “[o]pposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall

9

be in writing and shall be filed and served not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed

10

(or continued) hearing date” and that a reply may be filed “[n]ot less than seven (7) days

11

preceding the date of hearing . . . .” L.R. 230(c)-(d). The local rules do not state that parties are

12

entitled to provide notice of supplemental authority regarding motions that have been taken under

13

submission, without first obtaining leave from the court. The court finds no reason to strike

14

plaintiff’s response to defendant’s HMC’s supplemental authority, especially since HMC did not

15

seek leave of court to file a notice of supplemental authority in the first place. Because plaintiff

16

does not oppose it, the court will grant HMC’s request to file a reply in support of its motion to

17

strike. However, the parties are both cautioned that further filings, addressing motions already

18

submitted for decision, in contravention of the local rules may be stricken or subject the filing

19

party to imposition of sanctions.

20

Accordingly,

21

1. Defendant Harman-Management Corporation’s motion to strike plaintiff’s response to
HMC’s supplemental authority (Doc. No. 148) is denied;

22
23

2. Defendant Harman-Management Corporation is granted leave to file a reply in support

24
25
26
27

of its motion to strike within seven days of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 28, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2