Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 29, 2025

Inge Van Hees v. BAM Trading Service, Inc.

Judge
Jon Tigar
Docket
4:25-cv-05685
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

Inge Van Hees v. BAM Trading Service, Inc., Judge Tigar denied Van Hees’s motion to file a sur-reply because no circumstances warranted it.

Who this affects

The ruling affected Inge Van Hees’s request to submit an additional brief in the case; BAM Trading Service, Inc. opposed that request.

What happened

In Inge Van Hees v. BAM Trading Service, Inc., Van Hees asked for permission to file a sur-reply, an additional response to the defendant’s reply brief.

Van Hees said the reply raised new factual and legal arguments. BAM Trading Service, Inc. opposed the request, arguing that its reply raised no improper new arguments and that Van Hees had not shown a sufficient reason for another filing.

Judge Jon S. Tigar denied Van Hees’s request, concluding that the circumstances did not warrant a sur-reply.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Inge Van Hees v. BAM Trading Service, Inc. · No. 4:25-cv-05685
Judge
Jon Tigar
Date
Oct. 29, 2025

Background

Plaintiff Inge Van Hees moved for permission to file a sur-reply, meaning an additional brief responding to arguments in a defendant’s reply. Van Hees said the reply raised new factual and legal arguments.

BAM Trading Service, Inc. opposed the motion. It argued that its reply did not improperly raise new arguments and that Van Hees had not shown good cause for filing another brief.

Court’s Analysis

The Court explained that parties do not automatically have the right to file sur-replies. Although a court may allow one, permission is generally appropriate only when a valid reason exists, such as a reply raising new arguments.

The Court agreed with BAM Trading that no circumstances warranted a sur-reply. The Court stated that the reply included arguments raised in response to Van Hees’s opposition, although the provided opinion text is incomplete at that point.

Disposition

The Court denied Van Hees’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.