Kaur et al v. City of Lodi et al

Filing 162

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/13/16 granting 152 APPLICATION. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 MAYALL HURLEY, P.C. A Professional Corporation 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard, Second Floor Stockton, California 95207-8253 Telephone (209) 477-3833 MARK E. BERRY, ESQ. CA State Bar No. 155091 DERICK KONZ, ESQ CA State Bar No. 286902 Attorneys for Defendants, SCOTT BRATTON and ADAM LOCKIE. 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SUKHWINDER KAUR, et al., 12 13 14 Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF LODI, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:14-CV-00828-TLN-AC DEFENDANTS SCOTT BRATTON AND ADAM LOCKIE’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS TWENTY (20) PAGES and ORDER Having considered Defendants SCOTT BRATTON and ADAM LOCKIE’s application for leave to file an initial brief in support of their motion for summary judgment that exceeds the twenty (20) page limitation (ECF No. 152), the application is hereby GRANTED, good cause appearing therefor. The page limitation for the initial brief in support of Defendants SCOTT BRATTON and ADAM LOCKIE’s motion for summary judgment in the above-entitled action is hereby set at thirty-five (35) pages. A thirty-five (35) page limit shall also be imposed on Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion and a twenty (20) page limit imposed on defendants’ reply brief in support of the motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 13, 2016 27 28 29 30 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Order on Defendants Scott Bratton And Adam Lockie’s Application For Leave To File A Motion For Summary Judgment That Exceeds Twenty (20) Pages

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?