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)
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?