Parry v. National Seating & Mobility Inc

Filing 83

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 81 Letter Request. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on February 23, 2012. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2012)

Case3:10-cv-02782-JSW Document81 Filed02/21/12 Page1 of 1

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
525 Market Street, 17th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-2725
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Albany  Baltimore  Boston  Chicago  Dallas  Garden City  Houston  Las Vegas  London  Los Angeles  Louisville  McLean
Miami  Newark  New York  Orlando  Philadelphia  San Diego  San Francisco  Stamford  Washington, DC  White Plains
Affiliates: Berlin  Cologne  Frankfurt  Mexico City  Munich  Paris
www.wilsonelser.com

February 21, 2012
Honorable Jeffrey S. White
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Courtroom 11, 19th Floor
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102
Re:

Parry v. National Seating & Mobility
Case No. 3:10-cv-02782-JSW
Our File No.: 11576.00001

Dear Judge White:
I represent Counter-Claim Defendant National Seating & Mobility, Inc. (“NSM”) in the
above-entitled matter. I write to seek leave to file a sur-reply in response to the Reply
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of [Renewed] Motion for Class Certification
filed by Counter-Claimant Michael Parry ("Parry").
Parry has offered extensive evidence and legal argument in his reply briefing that was not
raised in his moving papers. Most significantly, Parry has included "surveys" of the law in all 50
states with respect to the class claims in this action (fraud, negligent misrepresentation and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing).1 Parry claims that these surveys
demonstrate that "there are no substantial conflicts of law that would prevent certification here."
Parry has also proposed a bifurcated trial for the first time in his reply briefing.
NSM requests the opportunity to respond to this new evidence and argument.
Specifically, NSM requests that the Court continue the hearing on this matter for two weeks to
March 16, 2012 (or any date thereafter that is convenient for the Court) and that NSM be granted
leave to file a sur-reply of up to 15 pages no later than March 2, 2012.
Very truly yours,
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
/s/ Ronald Bushner

cc:

Mark P. Meuser, Esq.
C. Brooks Cutter, Esq.
John R. Parker, Jr., Esq.

1

Ronald S. Bushner
The Court does not accept letter briefs. Accordingly, the requests set
forth herein are denied without prejudice.
February 23, 2012

Parry has curiously also included a survey of breach of contract law though Parry has not alleged a classwide claim
for breach of contract.
835799.1