W.J. Deutsch & Sons Ltd. d/b/a/ Deutsch Family Wine & Spirits v. Zamora
W.J. Deutsch & Sons Ltd. d/b/a/ Deutsch Family Wine & Spirits v. Diego Zamora, S.A.
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-11003
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In W.J. Deutsch & Sons Ltd. v. Diego Zamora, Judge Swain struck two improper reply filings and allowed replacement papers.
W.J. Deutsch & Sons Ltd. d/b/a/ Deutsch Family Wine & Spirits, whose reply filing and declaration were struck but who was allowed to submit limited replacement reply papers; and the respondents, whose letter motion was resolved.
What happened
In W.J. Deutsch & Sons Ltd. d/b/a/ Deutsch Family Wine & Spirits v. Diego Zamora, S.A., the respondents asked the court to disregard parts of the petitioner’s recent filings as improper extra reply papers. The petitioner opposed that request.
The court concluded that the petitioner’s reply on the cross-motion for service and Ignacio Temio Ceniceros’s declaration went beyond the issues allowed for that motion. It struck both filings from the docket.
The court gave the petitioner until noon on July 25, 2022, to file replacement reply papers limited to issues about service and to arguments already raised. Judge Swain stated that the respondents’ letter motion was resolved.
The detailed version
- W.J. Deutsch & Sons Ltd. d/b/a/ Deutsch Family Wine & Spirits v. Zamora · No. 1:21-cv-11003
- Laura Swain
- July 21, 2022
Background
Respondents filed a letter motion asking the court to disregard certain portions of the petitioner’s recent filings because they allegedly constituted an impermissible sur-reply, meaning an extra reply filing beyond the permitted briefing. The petitioner opposed the request.
Court’s Analysis
The court determined that the petitioner’s reply on the cross-motion for service, docket entry no. 53, and the declaration of Ignacio Temio Ceniceros, docket entry no. 54, went beyond the permissible scope of the cross-motion. The court cited the rule that a party may not raise an argument for the first time in a reply brief.
Ruling
The court struck docket entries nos. 53 and 54. It allowed the petitioner until noon on July 25, 2022, to file replacement reply papers. Those papers had to address only issues related to the cross-motion for service and could not include new issues not raised in earlier papers. The court stated that docket entry no. 55 was resolved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.