Allen, et al v. City of Oakland, et al
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DELPHINE ALLEN, et al.,
MASTER CASE FILE
NO. C00-4599 TEH
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
EXPANDED PAGE LIMITS
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
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.
21 IT IS SO ORDERED.
23 Dated: 09/13/12
THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?