Theriva Asks to File a Sur-Reply; Plaintiff Opposes and Files the Amended Complaint on Its Own
Summary written by the plaintiff, November 9, 2026. These are not Theriva’s words, and this is not a court document.
On November 9, 2026, Theriva filed a motion asking the Court’s permission to file a sur-reply, a further brief answering the plaintiff’s November 7 reply on the motion to postpone its November 18, 2026 special meeting (ECF No. 53), and attached the brief it wants to file. Under the Court’s October 26 order (ECF No. 44), this site does not post documents obtained through the PACER fee exemption. The motion is available on the Court’s docket through PACER.
Theriva asks the Court to:
allow it to file the sur-reply, or else disregard the plaintiff’s argument on Count V
disregard the other points in the plaintiff’s reply as raised for the first time
deny the motion to postpone the November 18 meeting (ECF No. 42) in its entirety
In summary, Theriva argues that:
The plaintiff relied on Count V, a request for a declaration about Theriva’s December 2025 meetings, as a basis for the injunction for the first time in his reply.
Count V is not new; it repeats a claim from the original complaint.
Count V has nothing to do with the November 18 meeting or the relief requested.
The amended complaint had not been filed on its own since leave was granted, and no summonses had issued for the new defendants.
Our side: filed the same evening
The First Amended Verified Complaint, filed as its own entry (ECF No. 54). It is the complaint the Court accepted on November 2 (ECF No. 49), unchanged, against Theriva Biologics, Inc. and four of its directors, Steven A. Shallcross, Jeffrey J. Kraws, Jeffrey Wolf and John Monahan, with summonses for the four directors. The filing.
The plaintiff’s opposition to Theriva’s request (ECF No. 55). It says Theriva’s response answered the earlier four-count complaint rather than the five-count complaint the Court accepted; that Count V and the facts in the reply are what Theriva left unanswered; that the reply has 19 exhibits, not twenty-two; and that the Local Rules discourage sur-replies. It asks the Court to deny Theriva’s request. Read the opposition (PDF).
The meeting remains scheduled for November 18, 2026. The documents filed with the Court are the official versions.