Chang v. Citibank
- Jon Tigar
- 4:25-cv-04162
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ching P. Chang v. Citibank, Judge Tigar denied Chang’s request to file a sur-reply related to the complaint’s dismissal motion.
Plaintiff Ching P. Chang’s request to file an additional brief was denied. The opinion does not state the outcome of the underlying motion to dismiss the complaint.
What happened
In Ching P. Chang v. Citibank, Chang asked for permission to file a sur-reply, citing new evidence and clarifications from personal files. Citibank did not respond to the request.
The court explained that parties generally cannot file sur-replies, which are extra briefs filed after a reply, unless a valid reason exists. Because the pending motion asked the court to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a claim, the court said it would generally consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, not evidence outside it.
Judge Jon S. Tigar ruled that the circumstances did not justify a sur-reply and denied Chang’s request for leave to file one.
The detailed version
- Chang v. Citibank · No. 4:25-cv-04162
- Jon Tigar
- Nov. 12, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Ching P. Chang moved for permission to file a sur-reply based on what Chang described as “new evidence and clarifications from my personal files.” Defendant Citibank did not file a response to the motion.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that parties do not have an automatic right to file sur-replies, which are additional briefs filed after a reply brief. Although a court may allow one, that discretion generally favors allowing a sur-reply only when a valid reason exists, such as when a reply raises new arguments.
The court noted that the pending motion sought dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For that motion, the court said it considers the facts alleged in the complaint and generally cannot consider evidence outside the complaint. The court also found that no other basis supported allowing a sur-reply and that the circumstances did not warrant one.
Disposition
Judge Jon S. Tigar denied Chang’s request for leave to file a motion for a sur-reply. The opinion addressed only the request to file the additional brief; it did not state a ruling on the underlying motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.