Enriques v. Dcosta et al

Filing 45

ORDER GRANTING 44 Motion for Leave to File : Sur-reply re 40 Motion due by 10/19/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/13/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

JUAN ENRIQUEZ,
Plaintiff(s),

11
12

vs.

13

RICKY DCOSTA, et al.,

14

Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-0034-JAD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 44)

15
16

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Juan Enriquez’s motion to adjudicate an attorney lien.

17

Docket No. 40. Plaintiff Enriquez’s prior counsel, Morrison Anderson, filed a response, and Plaintiff

18

Enriquez replied. Docket Nos. 43, 42. Morrison Anderson then filed a motion seeking leave to file a

19

sur-reply. Docket No. 44. For reasons discussed below, Morrison Anderson’s motion to file a sur-reply

20

is hereby GRANTED.

21

“A party is generally prohibited from raising new issues for the first time in its reply brief” as

22

the opposing party is not afforded an opportunity to respond. Queensridge Towers LLC v. Allianz

23

Global Risk US Ins. Co., 2015 WL 1403479 at *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 26, 2015) (citing Eberle v. City of

24

Anahiem, 901 F.2d 814, 818 (9th Cir. 1990)). Therefore,“[w]here the moving party presents new

25

matters for the first time in a reply brief, the Court may either refuse to consider the new matters or

26

allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond.” Steven Cohen Prods. Ltd. v. Lucky Star, Inc., 2015

27

WL 3555384 at *3 (D. Nev. June 5, 2015) (citing Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007)).

28

A court may grant a party leave to file a sur-reply in order to afford her that opportunity. Id. However,

1

such a sur-reply may “only address new matters raised in a reply to which a party would otherwise be

2

unable to respond.” Steven Cohen Prods. Ltd., 2015 WL 3555384 at *3.

3

Here, Plaintiff Enriquez presented two new matters in his reply brief. First, Plaintiff Enriquez

4

picked apart Morrison Anderson’s time sheets. Docket No. 43 at 2-6. Second, he denied that Morrison

5

Anderson relinquished his complete client file. Id., at 7-8. This deprived Morrison Anderson of the

6

opportunity of addressing those arguments. Rather than refusing to consider Plaintiff Enriquez’s new

7

arguments, the Court finds that Morrison Anderson should be afforded a chance to respond to them.

8

IV.

9
10

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Morrison Anderson leave to file a sur-reply to address

only the new matters raised in Plaintiff’s reply, no later than October 19, 2015.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: October 13, 2015

13
14

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2