Smith v. SFM LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Maria Smith, No. 2:21-cv-01030-KJM-DB Plaintiff, ORDER v. Henry’s Holdings, LLC, 1S Defendant. 16 The motion to strike portions of the defendant’s reply is denied. See ECF No. 24. The arguments in question appropriately respond to the plaintiff's opposition. See, e.g., Bruce v. Woodford, No. 07-00269, 2012 WL 1424166, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2012) (“The purpose of a 20 reply is to respond to Plaintiff's opposition. . . . [T]he Court will not strike Defendants’ arguments simply because they were not raised in their motion to dismiss.”). This order resolves ECF No. 24. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: November 29, 2021. ee

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE