H. Daya International Co., Ltd. v. DO Denim, LLC et al, No. 1:2016cv08668 - Document 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: Because the Court did not expressly authorize the surreply to be filed, the Court respectfully directs the Clerk of Court to strike Dkt. No. 235 from the docket but retain the summary docket text for the record. If the Court determines that a surreply is needed to address arguments that the Siskind Defendants make for the first time in their reply brief, the Court will direct H. Daya to submit its surreply at that time. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 8/19/2021) (js)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
H. Daya International Co., Ltd. v. DO Denim, LLC et al Doc. 238 Case 1:16-cv-08668-VM-DCF Document 238 Filed 08/19/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------X H. Daya International Co., Ltd., : August 19, : Plaintiff, : 16 Civ. 8668 (VM) : - against: DECISION AND ORDER : Do Denim LLC, et al., : : Defendants : -----------------------------------X VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge. 2021 On July 27, 2021, plaintiff H. Daya International Co. Ltd. (“H. Daya”) filed a letter motion seeking permission to file Dkt. No. 229 and its attached exhibits after the deadline. (See Dkt. No. 231.) H. Daya also sought permission to file a surreply. (See id.) On July 29, 2021, the Court granted H. Daya permission to file Dkt. No. 229 and its attachments after the deadline. (See Dkt. No. 232.) The Court did not explicitly grant H. Daya’s request to file a surreply, nor did it explicitly deny the request. On August 13, 2021, H. Daya filed a surreply on the belief that the Court had granted its request to do so. (See Dkt. Siskind Group & LLC No. 235.) Co., Inc. (“Vintage On August (“Siskind 16, & Apparel”), 2021, Co.”), and defendants Vintage Richard R. Apparel Siskind (“Siskind”) (collectively, the “Siskind Defendants”) filed a letter requesting the Court strike the surreply as an 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:16-cv-08668-VM-DCF Document 238 Filed 08/19/21 Page 2 of 2 unauthorized filing. (Dkt. No. 236.) H. Daya opposes that request. (Dkt. No. 237.) Because the Court did not expressly authorize the surreply to be filed, the Court respectfully directs the Clerk of Court to strike Dkt. No. 235 from the docket but retain the summary docket text for the record. If the Court determines that a surreply is needed to address arguments that the Siskind Defendants make for the first time in their reply brief, the Court will direct H. Daya to submit its surreply at that time. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York 19 August 2021 _________________________ VICTOR MARRERO U.S.D.J. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
