Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00672/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00672-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Trademark

---

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

1

Plaintiff includes a request to respond to the addendum in its motions.

07cv0672

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEPPERBALL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SECURITY WITH ADVANCED

TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv0672 JAH(POR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STRIKE AND

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST TO FILE A RESPONSE

TO DEFENDANT’S ADDENDUM

[Doc. No. 31]

On October 3, 2007, Defendants filed an addendum to their reply in support of the

motion to stay proceedings without first seeking leave of court. Plaintiff objects to and moves

to strike the addendum.

A party must seek leave of court before filing any supplemental pleading. See

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d). As such, the addendum may be stricken as improperly filed. However, the

Court finds the addendum pertinent to the issues raised in the motion to stay the proceedings

and therefore, denies the request to strike the document. Plaintiff shall have an opportunity

to file a response.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to strike is DENIED. 

Case 3:07-cv-00672-JAH-POR Document 32 Filed 10/05/07 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 07cv0672

2. Plaintiff shall file a response to the addendum on or before October 15, 2007.

DATED: October 5, 2007

HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00672-JAH-POR Document 32 Filed 10/05/07 Page 2 of 2