3:23-cv-00541•United States of America v. City of San Diego
Full text
1 23cv0541-LL-VET 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 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., Defendants. __________________________________ AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. Case No.: 23cv0541-LL-VET ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE [ECF No. 212] Before the Court is Defendant City of San Diego’s (“City”) Motion to Strike Plaintiff United States of America’s (“United States”) Notice of Clarification filed on December 22, 2025 [ECF No. 211 (“Notice”)]. ECF No. 212 (“Mot.”). United States filed a response in opposition [ECF No. 213] and the City filed a reply [ECF No. 214]. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the City’s Motion. On December 22, 2025, United States filed a “Notice of Clarification Regarding Its Opposition to the City’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF 184) and Its Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record (ECF 156).” ECF No. 211. The Notice essentially asks the Court to consider United States’s argument regarding Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, 590 U.S. 1 (2020) in deciding the City’s objections to the Case 3:23-cv-00541-LL-VET Doc 218 Filed 02/27/26 PgID.<pageID> Pg 1 of 2
2 23cv0541-LL-VET 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 Magistrate Judge’s order denying the City’s motion to compel [ECF No. 184] despite the fact that the City did not cite or make any arguments based on Atlantic Richfield in its motion to compel, at the February 4, 2025 motion to compel hearing before Judge Torres, or in its briefs objecting to Judge Torres’ order denying the motion to compel. ECF No. 211 at 2. The Court agrees with the City that it was an improper sur-reply that was filed without leave of the Court in violation of the Chambers Rule 3(E) as it does not present new authority. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the City’s Motion, and ECF No. 211 is HEREBY STRICKEN. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 27, 2026 Case 3:23-cv-00541-LL-VET Doc 218 Filed 02/27/26 PgID.<pageID> Pg 2 of 2
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.