Kor Media Group LLC v. Green et al

Filing 41

ORDER Granting 40 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike 39 Defendant's Supplement to their Reply Brief. The Clerk is ordered to strike the supplemental brief at Docket No. 39 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/07/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
KOR MEDIA GROUP, LLC,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
TIMOTHY GREEN, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-01217-JAD-NJK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STRIKE
(Docket No. 40)

16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ supplement to their reply

17

brief. Docket No. 40; see also Docket No. 39 (supplement to reply brief). Plaintiff argues this filing

18

constitutes an impermissible surreply not permitted by the Local Rules. For the reasons discussed

19

more fully below, the motion to strike is hereby GRANTED.

20

Absent leave of court, parties are not allowed to file briefing on a motion beyond that

21

outlined in Local Rule 7-2. See, e.g., Kanvick v. City of Reno, 2008 WL 873085, *1 n.1 (D. Nev.

22

Mar. 27, 2008), aff’d, 339 Fed. Appx. 745 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming order striking supplemental

23

brief). Defendants have not sought–and have not been granted–leave to supplement their reply

24

brief.1

25
26
27
28

1

In ruling on Defendants’ motion to stay, the Court noted that Defendants’ motion to dismiss
relies in significant part on a magistrate judge’s order that was rejected by the reviewing district judge.
See Docket No. 34 at 6-7 (discussing NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. Peter Sleiman Dev. Group, LLC, 2011
U.S. Dist. Lexis 114081 (M.D. Fla. June 13, 2011) (NetJets I) and NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. Peter

1

Moreover, it does not appear that a surreply should be allowed in these circumstances even if

2

Defendants had sought leave to file it. Surreplies are permitted to allow parties to address new

3

matters that could not have been addressed in the regular briefing. See, e.g., id. Defendants’

4

surreply provides argument and case law that it contends support its argument that Plaintiff’s claims

5

are properly dismissed on the pleadings based on insufficient allegations regarding piercing the

6

corporate veil under Florida law. See Docket No. 39. Defendants had every opportunity to make

7

such arguments in their motion and/or reply brief. Instead, they chose to cite to only one case

8

applying the Rule 12(b)(6) standards on piercing the corporate veil under Florida law. See Docket

9

No. 21 at 13-15 (discussing NetJets I); see also Docket No. 27 at 6 (same). Defendants relied on

10

NetJets I in outlining, inter alia, various allegations that are insufficient to withstand a motion to

11

dismiss, see id. at 14, and in arguing that the allegations in this case are similarly insufficient, see id.

12

at 15. To the extent Defendants believed other case law supported their argument regarding the

13

sufficiency of Plaintiff’s allegations on this issue, they should have cited it previously. The fact that

14

the undersigned has now pointed out that the only such case cited was reversed is not grounds to file

15

a supplemental reply brief raising new arguments supported by new citations that were available for

16

Defendants to cite at the time they filed their original motion to dismiss and reply.

17
18

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed more fully above, the motion to strike is hereby
GRANTED and the Clerk is ordered to strike the supplemental brief at Docket No. 39.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED: November 7, 2013

21
22

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

Sleiman Dev. Group, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 109973 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2011) (NetJets II)).
Because neither party indicated in their briefing on the motion to dismiss that the case relied upon is not
good law, the undersigned advised the parties that they “should seriously consider whether they are
ethically required to advise Judge Dorsey that case law relied upon in the motion to dismiss is not good
law.” Id at 6 n.7. The undersigned did not invite Defendants to provide new briefing supporting their
motion to dismiss.
2