Morases v. Panda Restaurant Group Inc. et al

Filing 49

ORDER Denying 42 MOTION to Strike 38 Response in Opposition to Motion, 41 Response in Opposition to Motion, 39 Response in Opposition to Motion, 40 Response in Opposition to Motion, (Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified.(gkelner, 4)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ELVIA MORALES,
Plaintiff,
v.
PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.,
PANDA EXPRESS, INC., and
DOES 1-20,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-12-02569

ORDER
Among certain motions that are substantive, also pending are
Defendants Panda Restaurant Group, Inc.’s and Panda Express, Inc.’s
(“Defendants”) Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 42) and Plaintiff Elvia
Morales’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply to
Defendants’ Reply in Support of Summary Judgment (Document No. 46).
Plaintiff filed her Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment three days late and exceeded the page limit by four pages,
without leave of Court, for which reasons Defendants move to strike
Plaintiff’s response.1

Defendants were granted leave to file a

motion of 30 pages in length, and the Court routinely allows the
adverse party an equal pages enlargement. Plaintiff’s filing three
days late, although not approved by the Court, in this instance
does not prejudice Defendants and has not delayed the Court’s work,

1

Document No. 42.

and will therefore in the Court’s discretion be allowed.

The

Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (Document No. 42) is DENIED.
Defendants filed as a single document their Objection to and
Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Evidence and Reply in
Support of Motion for Summary Judgment.

A sur-reply on the merits

of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is unnecessary.

See

Murray v. TXU Corp., CIV.A. 303CV0888P, 2005 WL 1313412, at *4
(N.D. Tex. May 27, 2005) (“A sur-reply is appropriate by the
non-movant only when the movant raises new legal theories or
attempts to present new evidence at the reply stage.”).

However,

Plaintiff may, within seven (7) days from the date of this Order,
file a response to Defendants’ evidentiary objections and motion to
strike evidence.
It is SO ORDERED.
The Clerk will enter this Order, providing a correct copy to
all parties of record.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 8th day of April, 2014.

____________________________________
EWING WERLEIN, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2