Hall v. Marriott International, Inc.

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 TODD HALL, individually and on behalf Case No.: 19-CV-1715 JLS (AHG) of all others similarly situated, [12] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO v. FILE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE [14] TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a 15 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY Delaware corporation, [16] Defendant. (ECF No. 29) [17] 18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Todd Hall’s Application for Leave to File 19 Supplemental Response to Defendant’s Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding 20 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [D.E. 28] (“Mot.,” ECF No. 29). 21 While it may be appropriate—under certain circumstances, at least, and preferably with 22 leave of the Court—to file notices of supplemental authority, such notices should not be 23 used as an opportunity to supplement the filing party’s arguments. See, e.g., Wi-LAN Inc. 24 v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 18-CV-01577-H-BGS, 2019 WL 5681622 , at *1 n.1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 25 1, 2019) (“[The defendant]’s notice of supplemental authority contains improper additional 26 argument in support of its motion.”) (citing Hall v. Shinseki, 717 F.3d 1369 , 1373 n.4 (Fed. 27 Cir. 2013); Desper Prod., Inc. v. QSound Labs, Inc., 157 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 28 United States v. LaPierre, 998 F.2d 1460 , 1466 n.5 (9th Cir. 1993)). ] To the extent Defendant Marriott International, Inc’s Notice of Supplemental 2 || Authority includes improper, additional arguments in support of its pending Motion to 3 || Dismiss, the Court declines to consider those arguments. Accordingly, the Court does not 4 ||believe that additional briefing is required. The Court therefore DENIES □□□□□□□□□□□ 5 || Motion seeking leave to file a supplemental response to the Notice. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. [7] 8 ||Dated: June 12, 2020 psi L. Lo meeaitie9 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge