Rollins v. Dignity Health et al

Filing 136

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 5/12/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor. Show Cause Response, if any, due by 5/5/2014. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 4/28/14. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2014)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

STARLA ROLLINS,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8

v.
DIGNITY HEALTH, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-01450-TEH
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendants.

9
10

On March 18, 2014, the Court ordered Defendant Dignity Health (“Dignity”) to file

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

a single brief comprising its opposition to Plaintiff Starla Rollins’s motion for partial

12

summary judgment and any cross-motion Dignity wished to make on the question of

13

whether its pension plan is exempt from ERISA. Contrary to the explicit terms of that

14

order, Dignity filed two separate briefs on April 21, 2014 – a 24-page opposition to

15

Rollins’s motion and a separate 22-page cross-motion for summary judgment that raised

16

issues beyond the limited exemption issue identified in the Court’s order. Rollins moved

17

to strike Dignity’s cross-motion, and Dignity timely opposed the motion to strike.

18

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court now GRANTS IN PART

19

Rollins’s motion to strike. Rollins correctly observes that Dignity’s two briefs violate the

20

clear terms of the Court’s March 18, 2014 order. In addition to exceeding the page limits

21

and consisting of two separate briefs, Dignity’s cross-motion raises arguments beyond the

22

scope of whether Dignity’s plan is exempt from ERISA. Accordingly, Dignity’s

23

opposition brief and cross-motion, Docket Nos. 114 and 115, are hereby stricken.

24

In addition, Dignity is HEREBY ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE as to why the

25

Court should not impose monetary or other sanctions for its failure to comply with the

26

Court’s March 18, 2014 order. The show cause hearing shall be held on Monday,

27

May 12, 2014 at 10:00 AM. If Dignity wishes to file a written response, it must do so on

28

or before May 5, 2014. Counsel for Rollins need not be present for the show cause

1
2

hearing.
Although the Court has stricken Dignity’s cross-motion for failure to comply with

3

the Court’s prior order, it would be inefficient not to consider Dignity’s cross-motion at the

4

same time as it considers Rollins’s motion on similar issues. Thus, on or before May 2,

5

2014, Dignity shall file a single brief, of no more than 25 pages, that includes its

6

opposition to Rollins’s motion as well as its cross-motion for summary judgment.

7

Although Dignity’s statute of limitations arguments fall beyond the scope of whether

8

Dignity’s plan is exempt from ERISA, Dignity shall include that argument in its filing

9

(assuming it does not want to abandon it), and the Court will consider it at this time in the
interest of resolving this matter efficiently. Dignity’s brief shall not include any arguments

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

not contained in its April 21, 2014 filings and need not address any matters on which this

12

Court has already ruled.1 Rollins shall file a single brief, of no more than 25 pages,

13

comprising her reply and her opposition to Dignity’s cross-motion, on or before May 23,

14

2014; and Dignity shall file its reply on its cross-motion, of no more than 15 pages, on or

15

before May 30, 2014. Failure to adhere to the page limitations, number of briefs,

16

restriction on content, and other elements of this order will result in sanctions.

17
18

The hearing previously scheduled for June 9, 2014, is VACATED. Both summary
judgment motions will now be heard on June 16, 2014 at 10:00AM.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: 4/28/14

23

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
1

28

This should go without saying, but past experience indicates that the Court must
be explicit about such matters.
2