Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04987/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04987-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BALJINDER SANDHU,

Plaintiff,

v.

VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, 

LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-04987-BLF 

ORDER STRIKING VCUSA'S 

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE 

OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

[Re: ECF 41]

On December 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority in support of his 

motion to remand the action to Santa Clara Superior Court. ECF 40. Defendant Volvo Car USA, 

LLC (“VCUSA”) subsequently filed a substantive response to Plaintiff’s notice. ECF 40. Under 

Civil Local Rule 7-3(d), once a reply is filed, but before the noticed hearing date, “no additional 

memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval,” with certain enumerated 

exceptions. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). One of the exceptions is that “counsel may bring to the Court’s 

attention a relevant judicial opinion published after the date the opposition or reply was filed . . . 

without argument.” Civ. L.R. 7-3(d)(2). Here, while Plaintiff’s notice complies with the Civil 

Local Rules, Defendant’s one-page substantive response does not because the Court did not grant 

VCUSA leave to file the paper. Because VCUSA’s response violates Civil Local Rule 7-3(d), the 

Court STRIKES it. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 27, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04987-BLF Document 43 Filed 12/27/16 Page 1 of 1