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)

Download PDF
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

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?