Critchlow v. Critchlow et al

Filing 48

ORDER STRIKING 47 Opposition/Response to Motion filed by Robert W. Critchlow and ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED OPPOSITION BY 2:00 P.M. TODAY, FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 2013. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
ROBERT W. CRITCHLOW,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
v.

No. C 12-01198 LB
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION BRIEF

13
14

KATE E. CRITCHLOW, an individual, and
JOHN A. WANER, an individual, and DOES
1-50, inclusive,

15
16
17

Defendants.
_____________________________________/
On January 7, 2013, Defendants Kate Critchlow and John Waner filed separate motions to

18

dismiss Plaintiff Robert Critchlow’s Second Amended Complaint. See ECF Nos. 43 & 44. On

19

January 22, 2013, the day his opposition briefing was due, Plaintiff filed a stipulation and proposed

20

order requesting a two-day extension and seeking leave to exceed the page limits in his briefing. See

21

Stipulation with Proposed Order, ECF No. 45. The stipulation and proposed order was unclear

22

about the number of additional pages requested. See Id.

23

That day, the court granted Plaintiff’s request for more time. See Order, ECF No. 46. With

24

regard to the additional pages, the court denied the motion “to the extent it [sought] leave to exceed

25

the page limits for two separate opposition briefs” and granted the motion “[t]o the extent it [sought]

26

leave to file one combined opposition brief of up to 32 pages . . . .” Order, ECF No. 46 at 2.

27

Plaintiff timely filed a combined opposition brief on January 24, 2013. See ECF No. 47. The

28

opposition exceeds the allowed page limit and contains no table of contents or table of authorities as

C 12-01198 LB (ORDER)

1

required by Civil Local Rule 7-4(a)(2). Accordingly, the court STRIKES the opposition brief.

2

Plaintiff has until 2:00 p.m. today, January 25, 2013, to file an opposition that fully complies with

3

the local rules and this court’s order. Defendants’ reply deadlines remain the same.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 25, 2013

6

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

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

C 12-01198 LB (ORDER)

2