Strother v. Baldwin et al

Filing 26

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/17/16 ORDERING the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Strike. (ECF No. 18 ) However, in an effort to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to respond to Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Court hereby extends the deadline for Plaintiff to file an opposition to October 27, 2016. Defendants may file a reply on or before November 4, 2016. The Court will decide this matter on the submissions by the parties and will not hold a hearing. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
BRYAN JAMES STROTHER
10
Plaintiff,
11

CASE NO. 2:16-CV-00255-TLN-CKD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO STRIKE

v.
12
DAVID S. BALDWIN, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16

Defendants David S. Baldwin, Michael McCord, the United States Department of Defense, and

17 the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (“DFAS”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) have
18 filed a motion to strike Plaintiff Bryan James Strother’s (“Plaintiff”) opposition to the Defendants’
19 Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff has filed an opposition, (ECF No. 20), and Defendants have
20 filed a reply. (ECF No. 22.)
21

Having considered the motion to strike, Plaintiff’s opposition, and the Defendants’ reply, and

22 based on the entire record before the Court, good cause appears to grant the motion to strike. Plaintiff’s
23 opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss exceeds the page limitations set by the Court in its
24 Standing Order and in the Order issued in this case on February 10, 2016. (See ECF No. 2 at 4, ¶ 8.)
25 Plaintiff did not seek leave from the Court to exceed the page limits. Although Plaintiff avers that his
26 opposition is only two pages over the limit, upon review Plaintiff’s briefing clearly exceeds the Court’s
27 page limits set forth in this Court’s Standing Order. The page limit set within the Order encompasses
28 any and all statements of fact and summaries of law. The page limit is not restricted to what the party

30

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STRIKE

1

1 deems to be his or her argument. As such, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Strike. (ECF No.
2 18.) However, in an effort to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to respond to Defendants’ motion to
3 dismiss, the Court hereby extends the deadline for Plaintiff to file an opposition to October 27, 2016.
4 Defendants may file a reply on or before November 4, 2016. The Court will decide this matter on the
5 submissions by the parties and will not hold a hearing.
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 Dated: October 17, 2016
9
10

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

30

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STRIKE

2