Opinion

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, 2025 WL 2315898 (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. Id. 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. Id.

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, 2018 WL 1569697, 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, 2024 WL 3218650, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2024); see also

5 Becerra, 2018 WL 1569697, 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