Warner v. Reiter

Filing 21

ORDER RE: 12 DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 04/21/2010. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

**E-filed 04/21/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Appellee's responsive brief herein was submitted eleven days late and in violation of the page length requirements. While failure to adhere to briefing deadlines and rules is not to be condoned, neither violation warrants the remedy of striking Appellee's brief, particularly where Appellee has now submitted an amended brief conforming to the page limits. Appellant also seeks to have the brief stricken on grounds that it was "ghostwritten" by an attorney who has represented 1 JOSEPH REITER, Appellee. ____________________________________/ v. In KELLEY REITER, et al. Debtors. ____________________________________/ JOHN G. WARNER, Appellant, No. C 09-6030 RS ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

NO. C 096030 RS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Appellee in related proceedings in state court, but who has not formally appeared in the bankruptcy court or in this appeal. The Court will take up Appellant's request for monetary sanctions and other relief related to the "ghostwriting" when it decides the appeal. At this juncture, even if the Court were to presume that there has been some impropriety on the part of the attorney, there is no basis to penalize the party by striking the brief. The motion to strike is DENIED. Appellant's reply brief shall be due fourteen days from the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 04/21/2010 RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

NO. C 096030 RS