Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01715/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01715-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332fr Diversity-Fraud

---

1

19-CV-1715 JLS (AHG)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD HALL, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a 

Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19-CV-1715 JLS (AHG)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE 

TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF 

SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

(ECF No. 29)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Todd Hall’s Application for Leave to File 

Supplemental Response to Defendant’s Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [D.E. 28] (“Mot.,” ECF No. 29). 

While it may be appropriate—under certain circumstances, at least, and preferably with 

leave of the Court—to file notices of supplemental authority, such notices should not be 

used as an opportunity to supplement the filing party’s arguments. See, e.g., Wi-LAN Inc. 

v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 18-CV-01577-H-BGS, 2019 WL 5681622, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 

1, 2019) (“[The defendant]’s notice of supplemental authority contains improper additional 

argument in support of its motion.”) (citing Hall v. Shinseki, 717 F.3d 1369, 1373 n.4 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013); Desper Prod., Inc. v. QSound Labs, Inc., 157 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1998);

United States v. LaPierre, 998 F.2d 1460, 1466 n.5 (9th Cir. 1993)).

Case 3:19-cv-01715-JO-AHG Document 30 Filed 06/12/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19-CV-1715 JLS (AHG)

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

To the extent Defendant Marriott International, Inc’s Notice of Supplemental 

Authority includes improper, additional arguments in support of its pending Motion to 

Dismiss, the Court declines to consider those arguments. Accordingly, the Court does not 

believe that additional briefing is required. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s 

Motion seeking leave to file a supplemental response to the Notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01715-JO-AHG Document 30 Filed 06/12/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2