Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Seven Hills Master Community Association et al

Filing 64

ORDER. The Court hereby GRANTS Counter-Claimant SFR leave to file a sur-reply to address only the new matters raised in Plaintiff's 62 Reply to Plaintiff's 58 Motion to Extend Certain Discovery Deadlines, no later than 2/22/16 at noon. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/18/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY,

11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
14
15

SEVEN HILLS MASTER COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-01373-JAD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 58)

16
17

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to extend certain discovery deadlines. Docket

18

No. 58. Defendant Seven Hills Master Community Association filed a notice of non-opposition,

19

admitting its oversight in providing documents gave rise to the need for the extension. Docket No. 60.

20

Counter-Claimant SFR Investment Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) filed a response. Docket No. 61. Plaintiff filed

21

a reply. Docket No. 62.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Here, Plaintiff’s reply brief raises new issues. It offers an entirely new motion, contending its

5

declaration at Docket No. 58 was erroneously filed without its motion attached. This deprived Counter-

6

Claimant SFR of the opportunity of addressing those issues. Rather than refusing to consider Plaintiff’s

7

new arguments, however, the Court finds that Counter-Claimant SFR should be afforded a chance to

8

respond to them.

9

IV.

10
11

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Counter-Claimant SFR leave to file a sur-reply to

address only the new matters raised in Plaintiff’s reply, no later than February 22, 2016 at noon.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

DATED: February 18, 2016

14
15

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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