Smith v. SFM LLC

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 Maria Smith, No. 2:21-cv-01030-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Henry’s Holdings, LLC, 1S Defendant.

17 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 | 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.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 DATED: November 29, 2021.

25 ee CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE