Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 21, 2022

Harriram v. Fera

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-03356
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Harriram v. Fera, Judge Moses allowed a proposed sur-reply to remain on the docket but barred further submissions on the pending dismissal motion.

Who this affects

Priya Harriram and the defendants in the pending motion to dismiss, because the proposed sur-reply remained on the docket and no further submissions were permitted.

What happened

In Harriram v. Fera, Priya Harriram submitted a second opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, which the court treated as a proposed sur-reply and a request to file it.

The court explained that sur-replies are normally allowed only when they address arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. It found that Harriram’s proposed sur-reply did not identify or address any such new argument.

Even so, Judge Moses permitted the proposed sur-reply to remain on the docket and stated that no further submissions would be accepted concerning the pending motion to dismiss. The court did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Harriram v. Fera · No. 1:22-cv-03356
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Dec. 21, 2022

What the court considered

The court received and reviewed Priya Harriram’s second opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The court construed that filing as a proposed sur-reply—a response submitted after the moving party’s reply brief—and as a request for permission to file it.

Court’s reasoning

The court stated that leave to file a sur-reply is normally granted only when the sur-reply addresses arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief. It concluded that Harriram’s proposed sur-reply did not identify or address any argument raised for the first time in the defendants’ reply.

Order

Despite that conclusion, the court permitted the proposed sur-reply to remain on the docket. It ordered that no further submissions would be accepted in support of or opposition to the pending motion to dismiss. This order did not decide the motion to dismiss itself. Judge Barbara Moses signed the order as the United States Magistrate Judge.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.