Sandhu v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC
ORDER STRIKING ( 41 ) VCUSA'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/27/2016. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2016) Modified on 12/27/2016 (srnS, COURT STAFF).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case No. 16-cv-04987-BLF
VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA,
LLC, et al.,
ORDER STRIKING VCUSA'S
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE
OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
[Re: ECF 41]
United States District Court
Northern District of California
On December 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority in support of his
motion to remand the action to Santa Clara Superior Court. ECF 40. Defendant Volvo Car USA,
LLC (“VCUSA”) subsequently filed a substantive response to Plaintiff’s notice. ECF 40. Under
Civil Local Rule 7-3(d), once a reply is filed, but before the noticed hearing date, “no additional
memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval,” with certain enumerated
exceptions. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). One of the exceptions is that “counsel may bring to the Court’s
attention a relevant judicial opinion published after the date the opposition or reply was filed . . .
without argument.” Civ. L.R. 7-3(d)(2). Here, while Plaintiff’s notice complies with the Civil
Local Rules, Defendant’s one-page substantive response does not because the Court did not grant
VCUSA leave to file the paper. Because VCUSA’s response violates Civil Local Rule 7-3(d), the
Court STRIKES it.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 27, 2016
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
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?