Ellis et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying 41 third-party plaintiffs' Motion to file a sur-reply. See order for specifics. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 4/9/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EM)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA *** ) MELINDA ELLIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ALESSI TRUSTEE CORPORATION; et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

3:09-CV-0428-LRH-RAM ORDER

Before the court is third-party plaintiffs' motion to file a sur-reply filed on February 22, 2010. Doc. #41.1 Third-party plaintiffs seek leave to file a sur-reply to third-party defendants' motion to dismiss arguing that the arguments raised in third-party defendants' reply require additional explanation. Id. A court has the inherent authority to grant leave to a party to file a sur-reply when the information would be germane to the court's evaluation of a pending matter. See Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Shalala, 177 F.3d 1126, 1129 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, the court has reviewed the papers and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that a sur-reply is unnecessary; the motion has been fully briefed and third-party plaintiffs have filed a thorough opposition of the motion to dismiss. Further, third-party defendants' reply does not raise new arguments warranting a sur-reply.

Refers to the court's docket number.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that third-party plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a surreply (Doc. #41) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 9th day of April, 2010.

__________________________________ LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2