GreenCycle Paint, Inc. v. PaintCare, Inc. et al
ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying 69 Motion for Leave to File Reply. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2017)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GREENCYCLE PAINT, INC.,
Case No. 15-cv-04059-MEJ
ORDER DENYING PAINTCARE INC.'S
MOTION TO FILE REPLY
PAINTCARE, INC., et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 69
United States District Court
Northern District of California
The Court previously ordered Defendant PaintCare Inc. (“PaintCare”) to file a
supplemental brief to its Motion to Dismiss and ordered Plaintiff GreenCycle Paint, Inc.
(“Plaintiff”) to file a response. Order, Dkt. No. 66. PaintCare and Plaintiff timely filed these
documents. See Suppl. Br., Dkt. No. 67; Suppl. Resp., Dkt. No. 68. PaintCare now moves for
leave to file a reply to Plaintiff’s response. Mot., Dkt. No. 69; Ex. A (Proposed Reply), id.
Plaintiff opposes PaintCare’s Motion. Opp’n, Dkt. No. 70.
As an initial matter, PaintCare’s Motion violates Civil Local Rule 7-11(a) because it does
not contain “a stipulation under Civil L.R. 7-12 or  a declaration that explains why a stipulation
could not be obtained.” Further, PaintCare does not explain why it could not include the
arguments set forth in its proposed Reply in its supplemental brief. Indeed, it appears PaintCare
could have done so: PaintCare’s supplemental brief consists of only 7 of its allotted 10 pages. See
Suppl. Br.; Order at 2. Accordingly, the Court DENIES PaintCare’s motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 3, 2017
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?