Legar v. Landry's Inc dba Golden Nugget

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6) RITALEGAR, ral. Case No. 2:20-cv-02274-RFB-NIK Plaintiffs, 7 ORDER [Docket No. 27] LANDRY’S, INC., Defendant.

1] Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

12] Docket No. 27. A party seeking leave to amend a pleading “must attach the proposed amended 13} pleading to a motion seeking leave of the court to file an amended pleading.” LR 15-1(a). Here, 14} Plaintiffs attach a proposed second amended complaint to their motion seeking leave to amend.

15] See Docket No. 27-1. Defendant’s response addresses that proposed second amended complaint.

See Docket No. 34. In their reply brief, however, Plaintiffs attach and ask the Court for leave to 17] file an entirely different proposed second amended complaint. Compare Docket No. 27-1 with 18] Docket No. 37-1. Courts generally disregard arguments first raised in a reply brief because the 19] timing of the argument deprives the opposing party of the opportunity to respond. See, e.g., 20] Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a 21} different second amended complaint violates the Court’s Local Rules and is improperly attached to their reply brief.

23 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, Docket No. 27, is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: June 1, 2021 UZ 27 4 x Nancy-J. Keppe 28 United States Magistrate Judge