Reading the replies, you really feel for Johnny Depp. And he's probably worse than Vic since he's in a bigger field where you can't claw your way out of the abyss, or at least it's much harder.
1. Have even one of you dumbasses levelled so much as 1 word of criticism towards any of the defendants filings as we have of Ty's on a regular basis? (hint:NO)
2. Have any of you said 1 word about Lemonwah's grossly inflated billing practices? (hint: NO)
3. Until you start practicing what you preach your stupidity will be summarily dismissed.
Well, they do. The rules actually do not even mention the word "surreply" so apparently they literally don't exist. If you want to file yet another brief after the specifically allowed batches, you do have to file a "motion for leave to file sur-reply," or at least that's what other Second District cases have done. There's no rule allowing such a motion. This is generally after the case is set for argument, but it was fully briefed before then, or it would not have been set for argument.
All gnat-fucking aside, if the court can simply skip further briefing and decide the case on the papers, it is for all reasonable purposes "fully briefed," even if the rules permit, but do not require, a party to submit additional papers if they are lucky or fast enough to get it in before the court decides it or sets it for oral argument.
After it has done that, of course, any further attempt to submit papers would have to be by leave of court, and then they would be submitted specifically named something like "motion for leave to file sur-reply," even though you rarely see the alleged "motion" actually argued in depth, and it generally simply consists of the actual brief that the court would accept if it chose to do so.
A "reply" after full briefing as permitted in the rules is just a class of the general object of sur-replies, and is customarily called that. I seriously doubt there is actually any case law addressing whether or not something is specifically a "sur-reply" except in the context of when it is necessary to file leave for one, because it simply doesn't matter.
A naming convention does not determine what something actually is, though, nor does an awkward styling make something impermissible that is otherwise permitted by the rules. They're trying to turn an argument about what it is customary to entitle something into one about what it actually is by the accepted definition of the terms, even though it's absolutely a nugatory dispute.
It's pretty telling how far these guys want to dive into the weeds far, far away from anything resembling the substance of the briefs, though.
" The appellant may file a reply brief addressing any matter in the appellee’s brief. However, the appellate court may consider and decide the case before a reply brief is filed."
For the purposes of legal education, the term "sur-reply" is what the appellant's reply brief is referred to as. To quote from uslegal.com:
"[A] Sur-reply is an additional reply to a motion filed after the motion has already been fully briefed. For example, a legal document such as a motion is filed by one party (filing party) requesting the court to enter an order. The other party (responding party) responds to the motion."
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.6(c) reads:
"A reply brief, if any, must be filed within 20 days after the date the appellee's brief was filed."
There is a soft deadline, something I have said previously.
However, the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.6(d) reads:
"On motion complying with Rule 10.5(b), the appellate court may extend the time for filing a brief and may postpone submission of the case. A motion to extend the time to file a brief may be filed before or after the date a brief is due. The court may also, in the interests of justice, shorten the time for filing briefs and for submission of the case."
Again, the 20 days is a soft deadline.
For posterity's sake, my previous post in the lawsuit thread on the subject is attached.
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure allow the sur-reply to be filed after the soft deadline, alongside a motion to extend.
TRAP 38.3
The appellant may file a reply brief addressing any matter in the appellee’s brief. However, the appellate court may consider and decide the case before a reply brief is filed.[
TRAP 38.6
(c) A reply brief, if any, must be filed within 20 days after the date the appellee's brief was filed.
(d) On motion complying with Rule 10.5(b), the appellate court may extend the time for filing a brief and may postpone submission of the case. A motion to extend the time to file a brief may be filed before or after the date a brief is due. The court may also, in the interests of justice, shorten the time for filing briefs and for submission of the case.
Nick thinks the motion to extend the reply to the cross-appeal also covers their own reply brief. I disagree, but it does allow for them to argue that because they conferred with all counsel of record for the defendants and there was no objection to a motion to extend, and that both the sur-reply and the reply to the cross-appeal were due on the same day that there was an agreement to extend the sur-reply due date, especially with COVID hampering law offices. As you can see from TRAP 38.6 the motion to extend the deadline may be filed after the due date, and attached to the reply brief. There is 0% chance the appeals court does not grant that, and I'd wager they will also grant the attached motions for a word limit exceptions.
And before Lawtwatter starts talking about "it's not a brief", under the TRAP the sur-reply is referred to as a "reply brief" and takes into account all rules for the appellate court governing brief limitations.
" The appellant may file a reply brief addressing any matter in the appellee’s brief. However, the appellate court may consider and decide the case before a reply brief is filed."
For the purposes of legal education, the term "sur-reply" is what the appellant's reply brief is referred to as. To quote from uslegal.com:
"[A] Sur-reply is an additional reply to a motion filed after the motion has already been fully briefed. For example, a legal document such as a motion is filed by one party (filing party) requesting the court to enter an order. The other party (responding party) responds to the motion."
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.6(c) reads:
"A reply brief, if any, must be filed within 20 days after the date the appellee's brief was filed."
There is a soft deadline, something I have said previously.
However, the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.6(d) reads:
"On motion complying with Rule 10.5(b), the appellate court may extend the time for filing a brief and may postpone submission of the case. A motion to extend the time to file a brief may be filed before or after the date a brief is due. The court may also, in the interests of justice, shorten the time for filing briefs and for submission of the case."
Again, the 20 days is a soft deadline.
For posterity's sake, my previous post in the lawsuit thread on the subject is attached.
So, in short, Cat-fucker is wrong. Alan the Basement Dwelling butt-monkey is wrong, Sad Tuba Boy, who is cucked by his wife, is wrong. Emmerson Grant, who is very likely about to commit suicide, is wrong.
All this verbiage to avoid the minor correction of just saying "it would be more proper to have styled it simply reply" instead of what they actually said. Sad!
Dub voice of Aqua (Konosuba), Petra (Fire Emblem 3 Houses), and Myne (Shield Hero) making bad takes about MeToo shit. There's also a Cristina Vee sighting.
Brave of the "lawyers" at law of twats to call An0n a psuedo lawyer, when their only life is on Twitter 24/7, they don't have clients, they don't go into court rooms.
Please you absolute jokes, I ask of you to come here and destroy us all and prove us all wrong, quit hiding in your little safe space and block chains and echo chambers on Twitter.
Brave of the "lawyers" at law of twats to call An0n a psuedo lawyer, when their only life is on Twitter 24/7, they don't have clients, they don't go into court rooms.
Please you absolute jokes, I ask of you to come here and destroy us all and prove us all wrong, quit hiding in your little safe space and block chains and echo chambers on Twitter.
Dub voice of Aqua (Konosuba), Petra (Fire Emblem 3 Houses), and Myne (Shield Hero) making bad takes about MeToo shit. There's also a Cristina Vee sighting.
The fact that Faye Mata, who voiced a character who literally falsely accused a man of rape and ruined his reputation, thinks this, shows an complete lack of self awareness or irony.
Or maybe because it's anime, it doesn't happen in real life. Let's ask Johnny Depp.
archive.md
