Cruz v. Starbucks Corporation et al

Filing 88

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero striking 86 Motion to Strike and vacating hearing on Motion to Strike noticed for May 31, 2013; Hearing on Motion for Attorneys Fees shall remain on calendar. (jcslc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ROBERT CRUZ,

Case No. 10-cv-01868-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO
STRIKE

9
10

STARBUCKS CORPORATION, et al.,

Re: Docket No. 86

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff has filed a motion to strike (“the Motion”), asking the Court to strike factual

14

allegations contained in Defendants’ opposition brief filed in response to Plaintiff’s motion for

15

attorney fees. The Motion is noticed to be heard on May 31, 2013 and therefore does not comply

16

with the notice requirement under Civil Local Rule 7-2(a) which provides that a hearing may be

17

noticed no less than 35 days from the date a motion is filed. In addition, Civil Local Rule 7-3(c)

18

provides that “[a]ny evidentiary and procedural objections to the opposition must be contained

19

within the reply brief or memorandum.” Because the Motion was improperly noticed and does not

20

comply with the Civil Local Rules, the Court strikes the Motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 1-4

21

(“Failure by counsel or a party to comply with any duly promulgated local rule or any Federal

22

Rule may be a ground for imposition of any authorized sanction”); see also American Color

23

Graphics, Inc. v. Travelers Property Cas. Co. of America, 2006 WL 862958, at *1 (N.D.Cal.,

24

March 31, 2006) (“Parties are reminded that a failure to comply with any local or Federal Rule

25

may be a ground for imposition of an authorized sanction”) (citing Smith v. Frank, 923 F.2d 139,

26

142 (9th Cir.1991) (“For violations of the local rules, sanctions may be imposed including, in

27

appropriate cases, striking the offending pleading.”)). Accordingly, the Court will consider only

28

the objections that were included in Plaintiff’s reply brief. No further briefing shall be permitted

1
2
3

on the attorney fees motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 15, 2013

4
________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2