Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 22, 2024

Nagy v. CEP America, LLC

Judge
Richard Seeborg
Docket
3:23-cv-05648
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Nagy v. CEP America, Judge Seeborg granted plaintiffs leave to file a sur-reply and denied defendants’ request for one.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs were allowed to file a three-page sur-reply by April 25, 2024. The defendants were denied permission to file their own sur-reply.

What happened

In Nagy v. CEP America, LLC, the plaintiffs asked to file a three-page additional brief responding to an argument they said the defendants raised for the first time in their reply supporting a motion to dismiss.

The plaintiffs said the defendants argued that two Supreme Court decisions had undermined otherwise controlling Ninth Circuit law. The court stated that the defendants’ argument should have appeared in their opening brief and that the plaintiffs would be harmed without an opportunity to respond.

Judge Richard Seeborg ordered the plaintiffs to file their additional brief by April 25, 2024. He denied the defendants’ request to file their own additional brief.

The detailed version

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

Case
Nagy v. CEP America, LLC · No. 3:23-cv-05648
Judge
Richard Seeborg
Date
Apr. 22, 2024

Background

Plaintiffs moved for permission to file a three-page sur-reply, meaning an additional brief responding to arguments in the defendants’ reply to their motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs said the defendants had raised a new argument for the first time in that reply: that two Supreme Court decisions had undermined otherwise controlling Ninth Circuit law.

Court’s reasoning

The court stated that the defendants’ argument appeared to have been raised in their opening brief. It also concluded that plaintiffs would be prejudiced, or unfairly disadvantaged, if they were not given an opportunity to respond.

Ruling

The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a sur-reply and directed them to file it on the docket by Thursday, April 25, 2024. The court denied defendants’ request to file their own 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.