Sanchez v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Reylene Sanchez, No. CV-21-00896-PHX-JAT 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, 13 Defendant.

15 Pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court to File Response to Defendant’s Notice of Supplemental Authority.

17 Defendant’s Notice brings to this Court’s attention Bibbs v. Trans Union LLC, a case recently decided in the Third Circuit. Although it would have been better had Defendant simply included a citation to the case without any additional explanation, this Court finds the Notice proper. Thus, a response is not warranted. The one paragraph discussion of Bibbs included in Defendant’s Notice does not contain any argument. All that it does is offer a summary of the holding of the case. Defendant does not apply Bibbs “to the facts of the instant case or even summarize the [Third] … Circuit's holding in an improperly persuasive manner.” Vega v. All My Sons Bus. Dev. LLC, -- F.Supp.3d --, No. CV-20-00284, 2022 WL 294216, at *7 (D. Ariz. Feb. 1, 2022). The interests of fairness do not necessitate allowing a response.

27 In addition, Plaintiff’s Response improperly includes argument, as it attempts to distinguish the facts of Bibbs from this case. Including argument in a Response to a Notice □□ of Supplemental Authority that does not itself include argument is improper. See ThermoLife International LLC v. Aesthetic Distribution, LLC, No. CV-19-02048, at *1 n.

3|| 2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 7, 2020). Consequently, for this reason the Court will not grant Plaintiffs motion.

5 IT ID ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of the Court to File Response || to Defendant’s Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. 63) is hereby DENIED.

7 Dated this 29th day of August, 2022. ? ' 10 a _< , C “ James A. Teilborg 1] Senior United States District Judge _2-