Zabelny v. CashCall, Inc.

Filing 30

ORDER Granting 28 Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply re 24 Notice of New Authority re 6 MOTION to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or, Alternatively, Stay Action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 7/11/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

COGBURN LAW OFFICES
ANDREW L. REMPFER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8628
[e-mail]
DAVID L. LANGHAIM, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 12425
[e-mail]
2879 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200
Henderson, Nevada 89052
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff KYLE ZABELNY

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

12
2879 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200
Henderson, Nevada 89052
[phone] FAX: [phone]

COGBURN LAW OFFICES

11

KYLE ZABELNY, an individual AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED,
Plaintiffs,

13

vs.

14

CASHCALL, INC., a foreign corporation,
DOES I through X; and ROE Corporations I
through X, inclusive,

15

Case No.: 2:13-cv-00853-GMN-PAL
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR NOTICE OF NEW
AUTHORITY

16
Defendants.
17
Plaintiff KYLE ZABELNY, et al., by and through his counsel of record, Cogburn Law

18
19
20
21
22
23

Offices, respectfully moves this Court for leave to file a Sur-Reply in opposition to Defendant’s
CASHCALL, INC. Motion for Notice of New Authority (“Notice of New Authority”). Zabelny
seeks leave to file this Sur-Reply to merely distinguish in less than five pages the “new
authority” Defendant cites and show it does not apply in Fair Labor Standards Act cases such as
Zabelny’s.
This Motion is made and based on the papers and pleadings on file herein, the documents

24
25
26
27
28

attached hereto, the memorandum of points and authorities attached, and the arguments of
counsel, if any, at the time of hearing this matter.
///
///
Page 1 of 4

Case 2:13-cv-00853-PAL-PAL Document 28 Filed 07/08/13 Page 2 of 4

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2

I.

3

INTRODUCTION & REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Defendant recently filed a “Notice of New Authority”, in which it cited the United States

5

Supreme Court’s recent decision in American Express (CITE), which resolved the issue of

6

whether two businesses that had contracted for business-to-business services, could be compelled

7

to arbitrate their claims pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. Defendant cites this decision to

8

bolster its arguments Zabelny’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, must be compelled to

9

arbitration by the FAA. Zabelny believes that inference from American Express is incorrect.

10

Zabenly therefore simply requests leave to file a five page sur-reply quickly distinguishing

11

American Express from this employment-based dispute.

12
2879 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200
Henderson, Nevada 89052
[phone] FAX: [phone]

COGBURN LAW OFFICES

4

II.

13

ARGUMENT

14

With regard to motions filed with this Court, the Local Rules provide only for a

15

memorandum in opposition and a reply brief. Nev. EDCR 2.20. However, a court may consider

16

new evidence introduced in a reply brief if the non-movant is given an adequate opportunity to

17

respond. Elwakin v. Target Media Partners Operating Co. LLC, 901 F. Supp. 2d 730, 745-46

18

(E.D. La. 2012); Simmons v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., CIVA H-06-1820, 2006 WL 3447684 (S.D.

19

Tex. 2006); See Vais Arms, Inc. v. Vais, 383 F.3d 287, 292 (5th Cir.2004) (citing Seay v. Tenn.

20

Valley Auth., 339 F.3d 454, 481-482 (6th Cir.2003); Booking v. Gen. Star Mgmt. Co., 254 F.3d

21

414, 418 (2d Cir.2001); Beaird v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 145 F.3d 1159, 1164 (10th Cir.1998)). “A

22

surreply allows the nonmoving party on a motion for summary judgment to respond to new

23

evidence and new legal arguments raised for the first time in the moving party's reply brief.”

24

Olson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 174 P.3d 849, 860 (Colo. App. 2007) (citing Green v.

25

New Mexico, 420 F.3d 1189, 1197 (10th Cir.2005); Beaird v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 145 F.3d 1159,

26

1164 (10th Cir.1998).

27
28
Page 2 of 4

Case 2:13-cv-00853-PAL-PAL Document 28 Filed 07/08/13 Page 3 of 4

1

In this case, principles of balance and fairness weigh in favor of permitting Plaintiff to file a

2

succinct sur-reply brief because Defendant’s attempt to use the recent American Express

3

decision to bolster its arguments that arbitration must be compelled is legally incorrect under the

4

present facts. Zabelny therefore requests leave to file a five page sur-reply that merely

5

distinguishes American Express from this FLSA dispute.

6

III.

7

CONCLUSION & REQUEST FOR RELIEF

8
9
10

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion
for leave to file a Sur-Reply of no more than five (5) pages in length.
DATED this 8th day of July, 2013.

12
2879 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200
Henderson, Nevada 89052
[phone] FAX: [phone]

COGBURN LAW OFFICES

11
Respectfully Submitted By:

13

COGBURN LAW OFFICES

14
By: /s/ Andrew L. Rempfer, Esq.
ANDREW L. REMPFER, ESQ.
DAVID L. LANGHAIM, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff

15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER

21

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to file a Sur-Reply (Dkt. #28) is GRANTED.

22

DATED this 11th day of July, 2013.

23
24

______________________________
Peggy A. Leen
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 4