Teixeira Vaz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Aug 5, 2026
2:25-cv-00860

ORDER

This case is referred to Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).1 Before the court are pro se Plaintiff Martin Pecanha Teixeira Vaz‘s (“Plaintiff“): (1) motion for leave to file a sur-reply on Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company‘s (“State Farm“) motion to dismiss;2 and (2) motion to waive fees3 and motion to proceed in forma pauperis.4 For the reasons explained below, the court denies Plaintiff‘s motion for leave to file a sur-reply and denies as moot his motion to waive fees and motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

First, the court denies Plaintiff‘s motion for leave to file a sur-reply on State Farm‘s motion to dismiss. Sur-replies are not contemplated under this court‘s local rules.5 Further, “[a] sur-reply is typically appropriate only when new material is raised for the first time in a reply brief.”6 Plaintiff fails to identify any new material raised by State Farm for the first time in its reply in support of its motion to dismiss. Instead, it appears that Plaintiff wishes to raise in his sur-reply new arguments and theories not contained in either his complaint or his opposition to State Farm‘s motion to dismiss. Thus, Plaintiff fails to establish that a sur-reply is appropriate. Therefore, the court denies Plaintiff‘s motion for leave to file a sur-reply.

Second, the court denies as moot Plaintiff‘s motion to waive fees and motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Because State Farm removed this case from state court, State Farm, not Plaintiff, paid the filing fee.7 Thus, there is no need to waive any fees for Plaintiff, and the court denies as moot his motion to waive fees and motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the court HEREBY ORDERS:

  1. Plaintiff‘s motion for leave to file a sur-reply on State Farm‘s motion to dismiss8 is DENIED.
  1. Plaintiff‘s motion to waive fees9 and motion to proceed in forma pauperis10 are DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 5th day of August 2026.

BY THE COURT:

JARED C. BENNETT

United States Magistrate Judge

Notes

1
ECF No. 12.
2
ECF No. 9.
3
ECF No. 17.
4
ECF No. 18.
5
DUCivR 7-1(a)(4)(A)(i)-(ii) (providing for the filing of a “motion” to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a “response” to that motion, and a “reply” in support of the motion); DUCivR 7-1(a)(9) (“Unless ordered otherwise, the court will not consider additional memoranda.“).
7
ECF No. 2.
8
ECF No. 9.
9
ECF No. 17.
10
ECF No. 18.