§Why CasetextPricing

Hunt Construction Group v. Cobb Mechanical Contractors, Inc. et al

MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply

4 Cited authorities

  1. Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P.

    864 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2017)   Cited 710 times
    Holding that a district court has discretion to reconsider interlocutory orders

  2. Vais Arms, Inc. v. Vais

    383 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2004)   Cited 171 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a nonmovant's "conclus[ory]," "vague, self-serving statements" were insufficient to preclude summary judgment

  3. Lewis v. Rumsfeld

    154 F. Supp. 2d 56 (D.D.C. 2001)   Cited 125 times
    Denying leave to file a sur-reply where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant's reply presented any new matters

  4. Simmons v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

    Civil Action No. H-06-1820 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2006)   Cited 4 times

    Civil Action No. H-06-1820. November 22, 2006 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NANCY ATLAS, District Judge Pending before the Court is Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc.'s ("T-Mobile") Motion to Strike New Evidence, or in the Alternative, Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification [Doc. # 34]. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional Certification [Doc. # 14], to which Defendant responded [Doc. # 21]. Plaintiff's Reply