Roling v. E*Trade Securities LLC

Filing 108

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen re Sur-Reply; and denying 104 Defendant's Motion to Continue (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JOSEPH ROLING, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

No. C-10-0488 EMC

v.
E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC,

12

ORDER RE SUR-REPLY; AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONTINUE

Defendant.
(Docket No. 104)

13
___________________________________/
14
15
16

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is currently scheduled for hearing on January 20, 2012.

17

In their reply brief, Plaintiffs indicate that, based on recent events, they wish to include an additional

18

amendment, i.e., to add allegations regarding a “bug” on Defendant’s website. Because this issue

19

was not raised until Plaintiffs’ reply, the Court hereby orders that Defendant file and serve a sur-

20

reply on this limited issue by January 16, 2012. The sur-reply shall be no longer than five (5)

21

pages.

22

The Court also takes this opportunity to address Defendant’s motion to continue the hearing

23

on Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend. Defendant asks that Plaintiffs’ motion be continued until

24

February 24, 2012, so that it may be heard on the same day as Defendant’s motion for summary

25

judgment, which it intends to file on January 20, 2012. While there may be some overlap in

26

argument between the two motions, the Court shall not delay a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion. There

27

is less than complete overlap. The Court also notes that Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is

28

currently due to be filed on February 10, 2012; thus, delaying the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion is not

1

practical as a case management matter. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to continue is hereby

2

DENIED.1

3

This order disposes of Docket No. 104.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: January 10, 2012

8
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Because the Court is denying Defendant’s motion to continue, the fact that Plaintiffs have
not yet filed an opposition to the motion is essentially immaterial.

2