Mori et al v. Mongold et al

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
In re: 	:
: 	Case No. 25-50950
Kenneth Furry-Mongold and 	: 	Chapter 7
John Mongold, 	: 	Judge Nami Khorrami
:
Debtors. 	:
:
:
Judith Mori, et al., 	:
:
Plaintiffs, 	:
:
v. 	: 	Adv. Pro No. 25-02031
:
John Wayne Mongold, et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
:
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY
IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DOC. 51)
________________________________________________________________
This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 2, 2026
Case 2:25-ap-02031 Doc 56 Filed 06/02/26 Entered 06/02/26 15:22:49 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 4

2
Plaintiffs, 	Judith 	Mori 	and 	Allure 	& 	Wellness 	Management 	Services, 	LLC 	(the
“Plaintiffs”), filed a motion for sanctions on April 24, 2026.1 Defendants, John Wayne Mongold
and Kenneth Furry-Mongold (the “Defendants”), who are the debtors in the underlying chapter 7
case, opposed the Sanctions Motion on May 15, 2026.2 The Plaintiffs filed their reply on May 22,
2026. 3 The Defendants then filed a motion seeking leave to file a sur-reply in response to the
Reply on May 26, 2026.4 The issue before the Court is whether to grant the Motion for Leave for
the Defendants to file a sur-reply to the Reply. For the following reasons, the Motion for Leave is
denied.
Sur-replies “are highly disfavored, as they usually are a strategic effort by the nonmoving
party to have the last word on a matter.” Walden v. Gen. Elec. Int'l, Inc, 119 F.4th 1049, 1056 (6th
Cir. 2024) (citation modified). 	The Local Bankruptcy Rules reflect this principle by requiring
“leave of court for good cause shown” before a sur-reply can be filed. LBR 9013-1(c). Courts
have found good cause where a reply introduces a new issue or where a new decision was issued
after the completion of briefing. NCMIC Ins. Co. v. Smith, 375 F. Supp. 3d 831, 835 (S.D. Ohio
2019). Introducing new issues in a reply is unfair to the non-moving party because it has no right
to respond. 	In re S&G Hosp., Inc., 675 B.R. 525, 541-42 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2025) (collecting
cases).
The issue must be one that was not addressed in the original motion or the opposition brief,
such that the non-moving party was deprived of fair notice and a chance to respond to the issue.
Key v. Shelby Cnty., 551 F. App’x 262, 265 (6th Cir. 2014); Preston Hollow Cap. LLC v. Nuveen
1 Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions (the “Sanctions Motion”), Dkt. No. 46.
2 Defs.’ Opp’n (the “Opposition”), Dkt. No. 47.
3 Pls.’ Reply Mem. (the “Reply”), Dkt. No. 50.
4 Defs.’ Mot. for Leave to File Sur-Reply (the “Motion for Leave”), Dkt. No. 51. The sur-reply itself is incorporated
into the Motion for Leave, and will be referred to as the “Sur-Reply.”
Case 2:25-ap-02031 Doc 56 Filed 06/02/26 Entered 06/02/26 15:22:49 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 4

3
Asset Mgmt. LLC, 343 F.R.D. 460, 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2023). It is not enough that the reply cites new
authorities or addresses an issue in greater depth than the opening memorandum. Drus v. Microsoft
Corp., No. 25-72-DLB-CJS, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39397, at *6-7 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 26, 2026);
Stillwagon v. City of Del., 175 F. Supp. 3d 874, 890 (S.D. Ohio 2016). And the reply does not
make new arguments where it simply responds to arguments made in the opposing memorandum.
McAfee v. DataX, Ltd., 812 F. Supp. 3d 792, 798 (S.D. Ohio 2025).
Therefore, to sustain the burden of showing good cause to allow leave to file the Sur-Reply,
the Plaintiffs must show that the Reply introduced a new issue that is outside the scope of the
Sanctions Motion and the Opposition. And the Plaintiffs must also show why it does not make
more sense simply to disregard the new issue. See, e.g., Brown Bark I, L.P. v. Traverse City Light
& Power Dep't, 736 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1115 (W.D. Mich. 2010) (“the court rarely grants leave to
file a sur-reply as an alternative to simply disregarding the belatedly-asserted argument, and it will
not do so here.”).5
Judged against these principles, the Motion for Leave falls short of the mark. 	The
Defendants do not assert that the Reply introduces new issues. 	They argue only that the Reply
“materially reframes the requested relief and the factual record.” Mot. for Leave 1-2, Dkt. No. 51.
The Defendants have not cited any cases holding that “material reframing” warrants a sur-reply.
After all, the point is whether the reply introduces an entirely new issue, such that the non-moving
party had no opportunity to respond to it. Key, 551 F. App’x at 265. Even if a reply that “materially
reframes” an issue warrants a sur-reply, the Defendants have not shown such reframing exists. For
example, the Defendants assert that the Reply makes repeated use of the word “all” to describe
5 This Court has stated that it “generally follows” the approach of disregarding new issues introduced in a reply
memorandum, although it made this statement in a case that did not involve a sur-reply. In re S&G Hosp., Inc., 675
B.R. 525, 541 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2025).
Case 2:25-ap-02031 Doc 56 Filed 06/02/26 Entered 06/02/26 15:22:49 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 4

4
various categories of lost information. Mot for Leave 1, Dkt. No. 51. But the Sanctions Motion
also repeatedly used the word “all” to describe the categories of lost information. Sanctions Mot.
7, 11, 13-14, Dkt. No. 46. Likewise, the Defendants assert that the Reply “reframes” the issues by
arguing that the Court can infer intentional deletion from the circumstances based upon the
Defendants’ alleged “pattern” of behavior. 	Mot. for Leave 2, Dkt. No. 51. 	But the Sanctions
Motion also argued that intent could be inferred from the circumstances of Defendants’ conduct.
Sanctions Mot. 12-14, Dkt. No. 46. 	Although the Sanctions Motion does not contain the word
“pattern,” it argues at length that the Court can infer intent based upon the Defendants’ conduct,
the timing, and scope of each alleged deletion. Id. at 13-14. At the most, the Defendants have
shown that the Reply tailored its arguments to meet the Opposition. 	But responding to the
opposing memorandum is “a proper use of a reply brief, and it does not warrant a [sur-reply].”
McAfee, 812 F. Supp. 3d at 798.
The absence of any newly-raised issues confirms that the Defendants simply seek to have
the last word, which is not a valid basis for a sur-reply. Walden, 119 F.4th at 1056. Allowing the
Sur-Reply here would confront the Court with the prospect of “refereeing an endless volley of
briefs,” which courts rightly condemn. Garrison v. Ne. Ga. Med. Ctr., Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 1336,
1340 (N.D. Ga. 1999).
Since the Defendants have not shown good cause, the Motion for Leave is denied. The
Court will not consider the Sur-Reply in deciding the Sanctions Motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Copies to:
Andrew Kamensky
Connor Organ
John Wayne Mongold, 8550 Trail Lake Drive, Powell, OH 43065
Kenneth D Furry-Mongold, 8550 Trail Lake Drive, Powell, OH 43065
Case 2:25-ap-02031 Doc 56 Filed 06/02/26 Entered 06/02/26 15:22:49 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 4