In Re Geoffrey P. Colacino v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a district court may not rely on legal arguments raised for the first time in a movant’s reply unless the nonmoving party has an opportunity respond to them
• explaining that in the context of new arguments presented in a reply brief, prejudice is remedied by allowing parties an opportunity to respond through a sur-reply
• providing that the district court’s decision on a motion for leave to file a sur-reply on a motion for summary judgment is reviewed “for abuse of discretion”
• finding that an employer’s decision to terminate a plaintiff was not pretextual where the employee did “not come forth with evidence that a similarly situated employee was treated differently”
• observing that the district court “does not abuse its discretion by precluding a surreply [with new material]” so long as the court’s decision “[did] not rely on the new material”
• explaining that a district court choosing not to rely on new evidence raised in a summary judgment reply brief “does not abuse its discretion by precluding a surreply” (quotation cleaned up)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).