1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 IN RE CALIFORNIA BAIL BOND 7 ANTITRUST LITIGATION Case No. 19-cv-00717-JST

8 This Document Relates to: ORDER ON MOTION TO STRIKE 9 ALL ACTIONS Re: ECF No. 582 10 11

12 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’ statement of recent decision. 13 ECF No. 582. The Court will grant the motion in part. 14 On September 23, 2025, Defendants filed a statement of recent decision in support of their 15 opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, identifying the Ninth Circuit’s decision in 16 Engilis v. Monsanto, No. 23-4201,

(9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2025). ECF No. 581. 17 Plaintiffs now move to strike the statement, contending that the paragraph of text accompanying 18 Defendants’ statement constitutes improper argument in violation of Civil Local Rule 7-3(d)(2). 19 ECF No. 582 at 2. In the alternative, Plaintiffs request leave to file a response.

Defendants 20 oppose the motion, arguing that the paragraph of text is simply a summary of the case and 21 includes one sentence directing the Court’s attention to the relevant analysis. ECF No. 585 at 2. 22 Defendants request in the alternative that the Court consider just the Engelis decision without 23 considering the accompanying argument.

24 The local rules permit parties to submit statements of recent decision but specify that any 25 such notice “shall contain a citation to and provide a copy of the new opinion without argument.” 26 Civil L.R. 7-3(d)(2). Defendants’ commentary violates Rule 7-3, “as it not only summarizes the 27 favorable portions of the opinion only but also proceeds to apply the opinion's reasoning to this 1 case.” Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., No. 17-CV-05921-WHO,

, at *4 2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018). The Court will therefore strike the arguments contained in Defendants’ 3 statement and “consider only the copy of the decision attached to the notice.” Tibbs v. Arlo 4 Techs., Inc., No. 23-CV-05096-EJD,

, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2024); see also 5 Becerra,

, at *4. 6 Plaintiff's request for leave to file a response is denied. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. ® 8 Dated: October 21, 2025 es 9 JON S. TIGA 10 nited States District Judge ll a 12

13 14

15 16 € = 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28