GreenCycle Paint, Inc. v. PaintCare, Inc. et al

Filing 71

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying 69 Motion for Leave to File Reply. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GREENCYCLE PAINT, INC., Case No. 15-cv-04059-MEJ Plaintiff, 8 ORDER DENYING PAINTCARE INC.'S MOTION TO FILE REPLY v. 9 10 PAINTCARE, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 69 Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 The Court previously ordered Defendant PaintCare Inc. (“PaintCare”) to file a 14 supplemental brief to its Motion to Dismiss and ordered Plaintiff GreenCycle Paint, Inc. 15 (“Plaintiff”) to file a response. Order, Dkt. No. 66. PaintCare and Plaintiff timely filed these 16 documents. See Suppl. Br., Dkt. No. 67; Suppl. Resp., Dkt. No. 68. PaintCare now moves for 17 leave to file a reply to Plaintiff’s response. Mot., Dkt. No. 69; Ex. A (Proposed Reply), id. 18 Plaintiff opposes PaintCare’s Motion. Opp’n, Dkt. No. 70. 19 As an initial matter, PaintCare’s Motion violates Civil Local Rule 7-11(a) because it does 20 not contain “a stipulation under Civil L.R. 7-12 or [] a declaration that explains why a stipulation 21 could not be obtained.” Further, PaintCare does not explain why it could not include the 22 arguments set forth in its proposed Reply in its supplemental brief. Indeed, it appears PaintCare 23 could have done so: PaintCare’s supplemental brief consists of only 7 of its allotted 10 pages. See 24 Suppl. Br.; Order at 2. Accordingly, the Court DENIES PaintCare’s motion. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: January 3, 2017 27 28 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?