Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04059/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04059-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Fraud

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREENCYCLE PAINT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAINTCARE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04059-MEJ 

ORDER DENYING PAINTCARE INC.'S 

MOTION TO FILE REPLY

Re: Dkt. No. 69

The Court previously ordered Defendant PaintCare Inc. (“PaintCare”) to file a 

supplemental brief to its Motion to Dismiss and ordered Plaintiff GreenCycle Paint, Inc. 

(“Plaintiff”) to file a response. Order, Dkt. No. 66. PaintCare and Plaintiff timely filed these 

documents. See Suppl. Br., Dkt. No. 67; Suppl. Resp., Dkt. No. 68. PaintCare now moves for 

leave to file a reply to Plaintiff’s response. Mot., Dkt. No. 69; Ex. A (Proposed Reply), id. 

Plaintiff opposes PaintCare’s Motion. Opp’n, Dkt. No. 70. 

As an initial matter, PaintCare’s Motion violates Civil Local Rule 7-11(a) because it does 

not contain “a stipulation under Civil L.R. 7-12 or [] a declaration that explains why a stipulation 

could not be obtained.” Further, PaintCare does not explain why it could not include the 

arguments set forth in its proposed Reply in its supplemental brief. Indeed, it appears PaintCare 

could have done so: PaintCare’s supplemental brief consists of only 7 of its allotted 10 pages. See

Suppl. Br.; Order at 2. Accordingly, the Court DENIES PaintCare’s motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2017

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04059-MEJ Document 71 Filed 01/03/17 Page 1 of 1