Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp. et al

Filing 311

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 308 administrative motion for leave to file sur-reply. (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2022)

Download PDF
Case 4:18-cv-00939-PJH Document 311 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 1 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CYNTEC COMPANY, LTD., Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 v. CHILISIN ELECTRONICS CORP., et al., Defendants. Case No. 18-cv-00939-PJH ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY Re: Dkt. No. 308 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Before the court is defendant Chilisin’s administrative motion for leave to file a surreply to plaintiff Cyntec’s motion for permanent injunction. See Dkt. 308. Chilisin argues that Cyntec raised a new argument in its reply brief, and argues that a sur-reply “is an appropriate way for Chilisin to address Cyntec’s new argument.” Id. at 1. Cyntec opposes the motion. See Dkt. 309. Cyntec argues that it was Chilisin that raised the new argument in its opposition brief, and argues that “Cyntec’s response thereto cannot justify the filing of a sur-reply by Chilisin.” Id. at 1. The court concludes that Cyntec’s reply brief did not raise a new argument, and instead simply responded to an argument raised in Chilisin’s opposition brief. Accordingly, Chilisin’s administrative motion for leave to file a sur-reply is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 21, 2022 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District 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?