Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01202/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01202-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1346wd Wrongful Death

---

1

13-CV-1202 W (JMA)

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

THE ESTATE OF VALERIA 

TACHIQUIN ALVARADO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JUSTIN TACKETT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 13-CV-1202 W (JMA)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION TO STRIKE 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SUR-REPLY 

[DOC. 144]; AND

(2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION TO STRIKE 

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND SUR-REPLY 

[DOC. 147]

Pending before the Court are two ex parte applications filed by the United States to 

strike two sur-replies, both filed by Plaintiffs without leave of Court—each labeled as a 

“Notice of Supplemental Authority.” [Docs. 144, 147.] Plaintiffs have withdrawn the 

first sur-reply and have not opposed the application to strike it. They have opposed the 

application to strike the second sur-reply. [Doc. 148.] The Court decides the matter on 

the papers submitted and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). 

For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the ex parte application to strike the first 

sur-reply and DENIES the ex parte application to strike the second.

Case 3:13-cv-01202-LL Document 149 Filed 03/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

13-CV-1202 W (JMA)

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

I. BACKGROUND

On February 23, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their first sur-reply to the United States’ 

pending motion for summary judgment without seeking leave of Court. (Pls.’ First Surreply [Doc. 143].) Plaintiffs styled this 37-page document as a “Notice of Supplemental 

Authority,” but it offered substantive argument on the issues before the Court in 

Defendant’s fully briefed motion. The United States applied ex parte to strike the first

sur-reply.

1

 On Monday, February 26, 2018, Plaintiffs withdrew the first sur-reply, 

representing that an administrative error had caused its filing. (Notice of Withdrawal

[Doc. 145].) The application to strike it remains pending. Plaintiffs have not opposed.

On February 26, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a second sur-reply without seeking leave of 

Court, also styled as a notice, this one only two pages. (Pls.’ Second Sur-reply [Doc. 

146].) Defendant applies ex parte to strike this document.2 (Def.’s Second App. to Strike

[Doc. 147].) Plaintiffs oppose. (Pls.’ Opp’n [Doc. 148].)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Local Rules in this District do not authorize the filing of a sur-reply. District 

courts have the discretion to either permit or preclude the filing of a sur-reply. See, e.g., 

Johnson v. Wennes, No. 08-CV-1798-L (JMA), 2009 WL 1161620, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 

28, 2009) (Lorenz, J.). Such discretion “ ‘should be exercised in favor of allowing a surreply only where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the 

movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.’ ” Hill v. England, 2005 WL 3031136, at 

 

1 Defendant captioned this filing as a motion. As it was filed without a hearing date, the Court interprets 

it as an ex parte application. The Court notes that it lacks the meet and confer declaration required by 

Judge Whelan’s Chambers Rule 5(a).

2 Again, Defendant captioned its filing as a motion. It had not obtained a hearing date, so the Court 

interprets the document as an ex parte application.

Case 3:13-cv-01202-LL Document 149 Filed 03/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

13-CV-1202 W (JMA)

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 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2005) (quoting Fedrick v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 366 F. Supp. 

2d 1190, 1197 (N.D. Ga. 2005)).

III. DISCUSSION

A. The Application to Strike the First Sur-reply will be Granted.

Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendant’s application to strike the first sur-reply, which 

has been withdrawn. The application is not moot, as the document itself remains on the 

docket unless stricken. Because the sur-reply has been withdrawn, the Court will not 

consider it and it is redundant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The first application to strike 

will be granted.

B. The Application to Strike the Second Sur-reply will be Denied.

Plaintiffs oppose the application to strike the second sur-reply, arguing that it 

references potentially relevant Ninth Circuit precedent. (Opp’n to App. to Strike [Doc. 

148].) Rule 12(f) authorizes the Court to strike “an insufficient defense” or “any 

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The 

second sur-reply is not an insufficient defense, and it is not redundant, immaterial, or 

scandalous. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). As the two-page document brings to the Court’s 

attention binding Ninth Circuit authority potentially applicable to a pending issue, it 

should not be stricken as impertinent. See Motion to Strike—Redundant, Immaterial, 

Impertinent, or Scandalous Matter, 5C Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1382 (3d ed. 2107). 

Defendant’s application to strike the second sur-reply will be denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(f).

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:13-cv-01202-LL Document 149 Filed 03/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

13-CV-1202 W (JMA)

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

IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER

Defendant’s ex parte application to strike Plaintiffs’ first sur-reply is GRANTED. 

[Doc. 144.]

Defendant’s ex parte application to strike Plaintiffs’ second sur-reply is DENIED.

[Doc. 147.]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2018

Case 3:13-cv-01202-LL Document 149 Filed 03/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4