Allen, et al v. City of Oakland, et al

Filing 730

Order by Hon. Thelton E. Henderson granting in part and denying in part 719 Plaintiffs' motion for expanded page limits. Plaintiffs' opening brief in support of motion for receivership shall not exceed fifty pages.(tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

DELPHINE ALLEN, et al.,

6
7
8

MASTER CASE FILE
NO. C00-4599 TEH

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
EXPANDED PAGE LIMITS

v.
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

9

Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion seeking to expand the page limits on their

12 briefs in support of their motion for a receivership. They request sixty pages for their
13 opening brief and, if Defendants’ opposition exceeds twenty-five pages, twenty-five pages
14 for their reply brief. The time for filing an opposition to or support for the motion has
15 passed, and no responses have been filed. The Court now GRANTS IN PART and DENIES
16 IN PART Plaintiffs’ request. Plaintiffs’ opening brief shall not exceed fifty pages. The
17 Court finds it premature to consider expanding the page limit on Plaintiffs’ reply brief
18 because Defendants have not requested that their opposition brief be allowed to exceed the
19 twenty-five-page limit.
20
21 IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23 Dated: 09/13/12
24
25
26
27
28

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT