Order | Filed: July 29, 2026
| Entered: July 29, 2026
Loh Xiao Han et al v. Interexchange, Inc. et al
Other Statutory Actions | New York Southern
Order on Motion for Leave to File Document
ORDER denying 326 Letter Motion for Leave to File Document. Request for leave DENIED. Whether to accept a sur-reply is within this Court's discretion, and courts often decline to do so to avoid "refereeing an endless volley of briefs." Adams v. Annucci, No. 17-cv-03794 (KMK) 2023 WL 2664301, at *3 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2023); see Sheppard v. Beerman, No. 91-cv-01349 (ILG), 2000 WL 33200253, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2000) (denying leave to file sur-reply because "[t]he submission of a sur-reply would invite a sur-sur-reply and the paper already generated by this action is voluminous"). Nevertheless, "[c]ourts grant leave to file sur-replies when they address arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief." Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Ripple Labs, Inc., No. 20-cv-10832 (AT), 2022 WL 329211, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2022). Plaintiffs' reply brief does not raise new arguments and does not justify additional briefing. The argument concerning Part 142 is plainly in response to an argument raised by the Eiffel Defendants in their opposition brief. See Dkt. 324 at 5 ("Eiffel Defendants argue that if the Market is not found to fall under NYLL's definition of restaurant, it would still nonetheless be exempt from paying its employees spread-of-hours pay because Plaintiffs were paid over the minimum wage." (citing 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 142-2.4)); see also Dkt. 313 at 9-10 (Eiffel Defendants' argument that Part 142 "[i]ndependently [b]ars [Plaintiffs'] [c]laim"). That is permissible. See Brand Engagement Network, Inc. v. AFG Companies, Inc., No. 25-cv-02245 (CM), 2026 WL 658521, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2026) ("[R]eply papers may properly address new material issues raised in the opposition papers so as to avoid giving unfair advantage to the answering party." (citation omitted)). Moreover, the Eiffel Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement has been fully litigated and is the subject of an order by this Court, see Dkt. 314, and no further briefing is required. Because the Eiffel Defendants have already filed their proposed sur-reply on the docket (which, notably, is procedurally improper), that filing is struck. See Adams, 2023 WL 2664301, at *3 n.4 ("District courts have discretion to decide whether to strike or permit a litigant's sur-reply."); Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Xia, No. 21-cv-05350 (PKC) (RER), 2022 WL 2784871, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2022) (striking sur-reply where, among other issues, it was "procedurally improper because it was filed alongside the request to submit it"). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. 326. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Rochon on 7/29/2026) (jjc)
Misc | Filed: July 29, 2026
| Entered: July 29, 2026
Loh Xiao Han et al v. Interexchange, Inc. et al
Other Statutory Actions | New York Southern
Letter
LETTER addressed to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon from Teresa L. Staiano dated July 29, 2026 re: Notice of Intent to Respond to Eiffel Defedants' Letter Motion dated July 28, 2026 (Docket 326). Document filed by Vannessa Chao Wan Yi, Victor Joshue Rocafuerte Alay, Celine Loh Xiao Han, Supphattra Sonbankoh, Jhoam Felipe Toledo Villamizar, Lizetthe Natalia Torres Jaimes..(Staiano, Teresa)