Huang v. Bank of America
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:26-cv-06497
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Xiaoli Huang v. Bank of America, Judge Wise denied Huang’s request to file a supplemental declaration opposing Charles Schwab’s arbitration motion.
The ruling affects plaintiff Xiaoli Huang’s effort to submit additional evidence and Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.’s opposition to that filing. The order concerns the supplemental filing, not the underlying arbitration motion.
What happened
In Xiaoli Huang v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., Xiaoli Huang asked to file an additional declaration opposing Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration. She wanted to provide additional facts about opening her TD Ameritrade account.
The court explained that the account-opening evidence had already been presented in Schwab’s motion, not introduced for the first time in its reply. The court also found that Huang identified no new evidence in the reply and no newly published legal authority that would justify additional filing.
Judge Noél Wise denied Huang’s administrative motion for leave to file the supplemental declaration. The order addressed the supplemental filing and did not rule on the underlying motion to compel arbitration.
The detailed version
- Huang v. Bank of America · No. 5:26-cv-06497
- Susan Van Keulen
- Sept. 22, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Xiaoli Huang filed an administrative motion for leave to submit a supplemental declaration opposing Defendant Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration. Huang sought to add facts about the opening of her TD Ameritrade account, which related to Exhibit 1 attached to Schwab’s motion. Schwab opposed Huang’s request.
Court’s reasoning
The court relied on Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-3(d), which generally bars additional memoranda, papers, or letters after a reply is filed. The rule allows additional material when the reply includes new evidence or when new relevant legal authority was published after the opposition or reply was filed.
The court concluded that Exhibit 1 had already been presented and argued in Schwab’s motion. Schwab had not offered new evidence in its reply, and Huang identified no new relevant legal authority published after the relevant filings. The court characterized Huang’s proposed declaration as an attempt to provide newly “recalled” facts, which it found improper.
Disposition
The court DENIED Huang’s administrative motion for leave to file the supplemental declaration. This order ruled on the request to submit additional material; it did not decide the underlying motion to compel arbitration.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.