Levy v. Capital One Financial Corporation
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:25-cv-04097
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Levy v. Capital One, Judge DeMarchi denied three requests for more briefing and struck an attempted amended remand motion.
Jordan Levy and Capital One Financial Corporation; the order directly governs Levy’s requests for additional briefing and his attempted amended motion to remand.
What happened
Levy v. Capital One Financial Corporation concerns Jordan Levy’s requests to file additional replies responding to Capital One’s arguments against sending the case back to the original court.
Levy sought permission to add arguments and materials about a voicemail, Capital One’s alleged conduct, service of removal papers, and other issues. The court found that the proposed arguments repeated points Levy had already made and that the proposed evidence was either previously discussed or irrelevant to whether Capital One properly removed the case.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi denied Levy’s motions for leave to file additional replies, Dkt. Nos. 26–28, and struck Dkt. No. 29 because it appeared to be an improper amended motion to remand. The order did not decide the underlying motion to remand.
The detailed version
- Levy v. Capital One Financial Corporation · No. 5:25-cv-04097
- Virginia Demarchi
- June 17, 2025
Background
Jordan Levy filed four motions seeking permission to submit additional replies addressing Capital One Financial Corporation’s sur-reply in opposition to Levy’s motion to remand. A motion to remand asks the court to send a case back to the court from which it was removed. Before this order, the court had struck a supplemental reply Levy filed without first seeking permission.
Dkt. No. 26 sought permission to file a purported transcript of a May 8, 2025 voicemail and additional briefing about that voicemail. Dkt. No. 27 sought permission to respond to five arguments Levy attributed to Capital One, including arguments about service by mail, alleged bad faith, settlement communications, equitable remand, and the evidence supporting Levy’s claims. Dkt. No. 28 sought permission to present an allegation that Capital One obtained Levy’s mailing address through fraudulent means. Dkt. No. 29 was styled as another motion for leave, but the court determined that it appeared to be an attempt to file an amended motion to remand.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that permission to file a sur-reply may be appropriate when a party raises a new argument or presents new evidence in a reply. The court found that Levy had not identified any new argument or contention in Capital One’s sur-reply that justified another response, much less three additional responses.
The court said Levy did not need another opportunity to discuss the legal authorities he had already cited. It also found that his proposed counterarguments largely repeated points from his earlier reply and other filings, including arguments about delayed service, alleged misuse of a settlement call to obtain his address, bad faith, prejudice, and abusive removal.
The court further found that the May 8 voicemail was not new because Levy had already discussed it in earlier filings. The materials concerning Capital One’s alleged history of fraud and customer deception were not relevant to whether Capital One properly removed this action. The court expressly made no finding about whether that material might relate to the underlying merits of the action.
Disposition
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi denied Levy’s motions for leave to file additional replies, Dkt. Nos. 26–28. The court struck Levy’s amended motion to remand, Dkt. No. 29, as improper. This order did not decide the pending motion to remand itself.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.