Bailey v. Enloe Medical Center

Filing 74

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 2/9/21 DENYING 72 APPLICATION for leave to file a surreply. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAN BAILEY,

12
13
14

No. 2:18-CV-0055-KJM-DMC
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the

17
18

Court is Plaintiff’s application, ECF No. 72, for leave to file a surreply in opposition to

19

Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff states that he seeks to address two issues discussed in Defendant’s reply

20
21

brief. First, Plaintiff seeks to further address what he claims is a requirement under California

22

law that a motion to dismiss be “verified.” Second, Plaintiff seeks to further address

23

Defendant’s contention that certain of Plaintiff’s claims are preempted and/or time barred.

24

Plaintiff’s motion will be denied because he has not demonstrated why his discussion of these

25

issues contained in his opposition brief is insufficient. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s

26

opposition and notes that both the issues Plaintiff’s seeks to further address are already

27

adequately briefed. The Court does not find that additional briefing by way of a surreply would

28

be beneficial.
1

1
2
3
4

The Court will address Defendant’s motion to dismiss by separate findings and
recommendations.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application, ECF No.
72, for leave to file a surreply is denied.

5
6

Dated: February 9, 2021
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2