Mancinelli v. International
- Tig
- 4:25-cv-08246
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Brook Mancinelli v. Marriott, Judge Tig denied Marriott’s request to file a surreply in briefing on Mancinelli’s remand motion.
Marriott International, Inc.’s request to file an additional brief was denied, and an equitable-jurisdiction argument raised for the first time in Brook Mancinelli’s reply was excluded from consideration.
What happened
Brook Mancinelli v. Marriott International, Inc. concerns Marriott’s request to file a surreply—a response to a reply brief—in connection with Mancinelli’s motion to remand. Marriott said it needed to address Mancinelli’s evidentiary objections, submit additional evidence, and respond to an equitable-jurisdiction argument.
Mancinelli opposed the request, arguing that Marriott could have submitted the evidence with its earlier opposition and that the equitable-jurisdiction argument responded to Marriott’s own mootness argument. The court agreed that evidence available earlier was not a reason to allow a surreply.
The court, in an order signed by Judge Tig, denied Marriott’s request. It also excluded Mancinelli’s equitable-jurisdiction argument from consideration because Mancinelli raised it for the first time in the reply.
The detailed version
- Mancinelli v. International · No. 4:25-cv-08246
- Tig
- Dec. 18, 2025
Background
Marriott International, Inc. asked for permission to file a surreply to Brook Mancinelli’s motion to remand. A surreply is an additional brief responding to arguments or material in a reply brief. Marriott said it needed to respond to Mancinelli’s evidentiary objections, provide additional evidence opposing Mancinelli’s effort to make those objections moot, and address an equitable-jurisdiction argument that Marriott said Mancinelli raised for the first time in the reply.
Mancinelli opposed the request. Mancinelli argued that Marriott should not be allowed to submit evidence it could have included with its opposition brief. Mancinelli also argued that the equitable-jurisdiction point responded to Marriott’s opposition argument that the request for injunctive relief was moot.
Court’s Analysis
The court agreed with Mancinelli that evidence that could have been submitted with the opposition brief was not a basis for allowing a surreply. The court agreed with Marriott that Mancinelli raised the equitable-jurisdiction argument for the first time in the reply. Rather than allow Marriott to file a surreply addressing that new argument, the court exercised its discretion to exclude the argument from consideration.
Disposition
The court denied Marriott’s request for leave to file a surreply. The order did not rule on the underlying motion to remand.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.