(PC) Paul E. Duran v. Longoria

Filing 81

ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 80 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Surreply signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 03/10/2025. (Deputy Clerk EF)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

PAUL EDWARD DURAN.,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

LONGORIA,

14

Case No. 1:20-cv-00289-HBK (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S SURREPLY
(Doc. No. 80)

Defendant.

15
16

On February 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Clarification to his

17

Objections/Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,” which the Court

18

construes as a Surreply. (Doc. No. 79, “Surreply”). In response, Defendant filed a Motion to

19

Strike the pleading on March 4, 2025. (Doc. No. 80, “Motion”). The Court grants the Motion.

20

On December 23, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 73).

21

After being afforded an extension of time, Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 24, 2025.

22

(Doc. No. 76). Defendant filed a reply on February 10, 2025. (Doc. No. 78). Thereafter, without

23

requesting leave, Plaintiff filed the construed Surreply. (Doc. No. 79).

24

Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nor the Local Rules for the Eastern District

25

of California permit the filing of a surreply as a matter of right. See Garcia v. Biter, 195

26

F.Supp.3d at 1131 (E.D. Ca. July 18, 2016) (noting the plaintiff did not have a right to file a

27

surreply under the local rules or under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Whether to permit a

28

surreply lies within the discretion of the court. Id. at 1133 (other citations omitted). While courts
1

1

are required to provide pro se litigants leniency, the court generally views motions for leave to

2

file a surreply with disfavor and will not consider granting a motion seeking leave to file a

3

surreply absent good cause shown. Id. (other citations omitted); see also U.S. ex rel. Meyer v.

4

Horizon Health Corp., 565 F. 3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that district court did not

5

abuse discretion in refusing to permit “inequitable surreply”); Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478,

6

1483 (9th Cir. 1996) (providing the non-movant an opportunity to respond). A district court may

7

allow a sur-reply to be filed where there is a valid reason for such additional briefing, such as to

8

prevent unfair prejudice. Hill v. England, 2005 WL 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2005).

9

Here, in addition to not moving for leave to file the surreply and show good cause, the

10

Surreply is unsigned. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires all pleadings, written motions,

11

and other papers be signed by at least one attorney of record or by a party personally if the party

12

is unrepresented. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); see also E.D. Ca. Local Rule 131(b). “The Court must

13

strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the

14

attorney’s or party’s attention.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). In its First Informational Order, the Court

15

advised Plaintiff that “[e]ach document submitted for filing must include the original signature of

16

the filing party.” (Doc. No. 3 at 2, ¶G). The Court further warned Plaintiff therein that any

17

unsigned document may be stricken. (Id.).

18

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

19

1. Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 80) is GRANTED.

20

2. The Clerk of Court shall STRIKE Plaintiff’s construed Surreply (Doc. No. 79) from

21

the docket.

22
23

Dated:

March 10, 2025
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2