Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02613/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02613-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR CHING, on behalf of himself and

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-2613 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO STRIKE; GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY; CONTINUING HEARING ON

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is plaintiff’s Administrative Motion, filed April 7, 2010, to “Strike

Portions of State Farm’s Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary

Judgment or, in the Alternative, For Leave to File a Surreply.” Defendant State Farm

Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) has filed opposition. Having read

and considered the administrative motion and opposition thereto, the Court rules as follows. 

Plaintiff argues the Court should strike State Farm’s reply to the extent it raises

issues for the first time therein, and, in the alternative, that he is entitled to file a sur-reply to

address those issues. The Court finds the parts of the reply identified as Section III,

Subsection E, Parts 2 and 3 (see Reply at 9:21-12:11), are legal arguments made for the

first time in State Farm’s reply. The Court further finds such arguments were prompted by

plaintiff’s separate arguments, made in plaintiff’s opposition, with respect to plaintiff’s claim

Case 3:09-cv-02613-MMC Document 50 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

under § 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. Under such

circumstances, the Court will deny the request to strike and will afford plaintiff leave to file a

sur-reply addressing the arguments made in those two sections. As to Section III,

Subsection E, Part 1 (see id. at 9:14-20), however, the Court finds the arguments made

therein were not made for the first time in State Farm’s reply, and, consequently, plaintiff is

not entitled to file a sur-reply addressing that part of the reply. 

Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff seeks to file a sur-reply addressing State Farm’s

arguments raised in Section III, Subsection E, Parts 2 and 3 of the reply, plaintiff’s

administrative motion is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s sur-reply shall be filed no later than

April 21, 2010 and shall not exceed five pages in length. In all other respects the motion is

hereby DENIED. 

The hearing on defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby CONTINUED

to May 7, 2010, at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02613-MMC Document 50 Filed 04/13/10 Page 2 of 2