Alkutkar v. Bumble Inc.
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-00422
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Alkutkar v. Bumble Inc., Judge Hamilton allowed a sur-reply and continued the hearing on defendants’ dismissal and arbitration motions.
Harsh Alkutkar and the defendants, including Bumble Inc.; the order allowed Alkutkar to file a sur-reply and postponed the hearing on the defendants’ motions.
What happened
In Alkutkar v. Bumble Inc., Harsh Alkutkar asked to respond to arguments and evidence that Bumble Inc. and other defendants included in their reply supporting arbitration. He said the material was new and important to their request.
The court allowed Alkutkar to file a sur-reply, without deciding whether the defendants’ material was actually new evidence. The sur-reply was limited to five pages and due July 7, 2022. The court also continued the hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to compel arbitration to August 4, 2022, unless it later decided a hearing was unnecessary.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued the order on June 22, 2022. The order addressed only the sur-reply and scheduling requests, not the underlying dismissal or arbitration motions.
The detailed version
- Alkutkar v. Bumble Inc. · No. 4:22-cv-00422
- Phyllis Hamilton
- June 22, 2022
Background
Harsh Alkutkar filed an administrative motion seeking permission to submit a sur-reply. He said that Bumble Inc. and the other defendants had raised new arguments and presented new evidence in their reply supporting their motion to compel arbitration. The defendants’ reply included a declaration from Christian Wong and exhibits concerning metadata and other evidence that purportedly showed Alkutkar’s activity on the Bumble application.
Court’s ruling
The court cited authority explaining that a district court may give the opposing party an opportunity to respond before considering new evidence attached to a reply brief. The court did not conclusively decide whether the Wong declaration and exhibits were new evidence or instead a response to Alkutkar’s opposition. To reduce any potential unfairness, the court exercised its discretion and allowed Alkutkar to file a sur-reply.
The court ordered Alkutkar to file the sur-reply by July 7, 2022, and limited it to five pages. It also continued the hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to compel arbitration to August 4, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. by Zoom, unless the court later determined that no hearing was necessary. The order did not decide either underlying motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.