Chin v. Tesla, Inc.
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-03873
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Chin v. Tesla, Judge Martinez-Olguin granted Tesla’s motion to strike Chin’s improper supplemental filing and ordered a short submission.
Sharon Lane Chin and Tesla, Inc.; the ruling removed Chin’s notice of supplemental authority from the record and required the parties to address the cited decision in a short submission.
What happened
In Chin v. Tesla, Inc., Sharon Lane Chin filed a notice citing a recent California decision in support of her opposition to Tesla’s motion to compel arbitration. Tesla asked the court to remove that notice from the record.
The court agreed that Chin’s filing violated a local rule allowing only a citation and copy of supplemental authority unless the court gives permission. It granted Tesla’s motion to strike the notice.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin also ordered the parties to file no more than 1.5 pages about the cited decision’s relevance to the pending arbitration motion by noon on April 7, 2025. The court warned Chin against further violations of the local rules.
The detailed version
- Chin v. Tesla, Inc. · No. 3:24-cv-03873
- Martinez-Olguin
- Apr. 3, 2025
Background
Tesla had a pending motion to compel arbitration. In opposition to that motion, Sharon Lane Chin filed a notice of supplemental authority under Civil Local Rule 7-3(d), citing Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Services Ltd., LLC, No. D083400, 2025 WL 615064 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2025).
Motion to Strike
Tesla moved to strike Chin’s notice. Tesla argued that the notice violated Civil Local Rule 7-3(d) because it included argument about the cited decision without first obtaining the court’s approval. The court agreed. It explained that the local rule allows a party to provide no more than a citation and a copy of the decision at issue.
Ruling and Further Filing
The court granted Tesla’s motion to strike Chin’s notice from the record. The court also stated that Rodriguez appeared relevant to its consideration of Tesla’s motion to compel arbitration. Because Tesla was willing to address Rodriguez at the April 17, 2025 hearing, the court ordered the parties to file a submission of no more than 1.5 pages addressing the decision’s relevance by noon on April 7, 2025. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin warned Chin that the court would not allow further departures from the local rules.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.