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

Filing 874

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting 867 Plaintiffs' motion to expand page limits on their reply memorandum in support of motion to appoint receiver. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 JOHN L. BURRIS, STATE BAR NO. 69888 Law Offices of John L. Burris Airport Corporate Centre 7677 Oakport Road, Suite 1120 Oakland, California 94621 Telephone: 510.839.5200 Facsimile: 510.839.3882 5 6 10 JAMES B. CHANIN, STATE BAR NO. 76043 JULIE M. HOUK, STATE BAR NO. 114968 Law Offices of James B. Chanin 3050 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, California 94705 Telephone: 510.848.4752 Facsimile: 510.848.5819 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 8 9 12 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 DELPHINE ALLEN; et al; 18 MASTER CASE NO. C-00-4599 TEH Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO ENLARGE PAGE LIMIT ON PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER; DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL IN SUPPORT THEREOF AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 19 20 vs. 21 22 23 CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., Defendants. Hearing Date: December 13, 2012 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 2, 17th Floor The Honorable Thelton E. Henderson 24 25 26 27 28 1 Allen v. City of Oakland, Case No. C00-4599 TEH Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion re Expanding Brief Length PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL 1 2 3 I, JULIE M. HOUK, DECLARE: 4 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and am one of the 5 attorneys representing the Plaintiffs in the within action. I have personal knowledge of the matters 6 stated herein and would testify to the same if called to do so in Court. 7 2. Northern District Local Rule 7-3(c) and 7-4(b) require that the reply memoranda filed by 8 Plaintiffs in support of their motion for appointment of a receiver is limited to 15 pages of text, 9 absent a Court Order to the contrary. Pursuant to Rule 703(c), Plaintiffs are also required to respond 10 to evidentiary objections asserted in the oppositions filed by the City of Oakland within the reply 11 memorandum and not in a separate document. 12 3. In this case, the opposition memorandum to Plaintiffs’ motion that was filed by the City of 13 Oakland was 30 pages in length. In addition, the City of Oakland violated Local Rule 7-3(c) by filing 14 a separate fifteen (15) page, single-spaced document entitled, “Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiffs’ 15 Evidence in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of a Receiver,” instead of making their 16 objections part of their opposition memorandum. Had the City included its objections in their 17 opposition memorandum as double-spaced text, it would have clearly violated the Court’s Order 18 granting its previous administrative motion to extend the page limit for their brief to fifty pages. 19 20 21 4. Plaintiffs previously sought an order enlarging the page length of their reply memorandum which was denied by the Court without prejudice. 5. Due to the number of issues raised by the Defendant in its opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion, 22 as well as the fact Plaintiffs must also respond to the fifteen page, single spaced objections to 23 Plaintiffs’ evidence filed by the City of Oakland, Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court for an Order 24 enlarging the page length of Plaintiffs’ reply memorandum to 30 pages of text instead of 15, to ensure 25 that Plaintiffs have sufficient space to address the issues raised by Defendant’s opposition 26 memorandum in the City’s improper, separate document setting forth its objections to Plaintiffs’ 27 evidence. 28 6. I declare that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury. Executed this 18th 2 Allen v. City of Oakland, Case No. C00-4599 TEH Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion re Expanding Brief Length 1 day of November 2012, at Dublin, New Hampshire . _________________/S/_____________________ Julie M. Houk Attorney for Plaintiffs 2 3 4 [PROPOSED] ORDER 5 Having considered the Administrative Motion of Plaintiffs and for good cause shown, 6 for appointment of a receiver shall be expanded to 30 pages of text. IT IS SO ORDERED: 14 17 n enderso Ju ER H 16 lton E. H dge The RT 15 AS _______________________________ RED Thelton SO ORDE E. Henderson IT IS Judge of theODIFIED District Court M United States R NIA 13 , 2012 UNIT ED 12 Dated: November NO 11 RT U O S 10 S DISTRICT TE C TA FO 9 Plaintiffs reply memorandum in support LI 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT A 7 N F D IS T IC T O R C 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Allen v. City of Oakland, Case No. C00-4599 TEH Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion re Expanding Brief Length

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?