Helton et al v. Factor 5, Inc. et al
ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong (striking 141 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 143 Ex Parte Application). (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/26/2013)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JESSE HELTON; ALISHA PICCIRILLO;
Case No: C 10-04927 SBA
8 CHAD LOWE; individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,
Docket 141, 143
FACTOR 5, INC.; FACTOR 5, LLC;
12 BLUHARVEST, LLC; WHITEHARVEST,
LLC; JULIAN EGGEBRECHT; HOLGER
13 SCHMIDT; THOMAS ENGEL; and DOES
On December 17, 2013, Defendants Julian Eggebrecht, Thomas Engel, and Holger
Schmidt (collectively, “individual Defendants”) filed a renewed motion for partial
summary judgment. Dkt. 141. The individual Defendants noticed the motion for hearing
on January 21, 2014. Dkt. 142. On December 18, 2013, Plaintiffs Jesse Helton, Alisha
Piccirillo, and Chad Lowe (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an ex parte application to strike
the individual Defendants’ motion. Dkt. 143. Having read and considered the papers filed
in connection with this matter and being fully informed, the Court hereby GRANTS
Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to strike, for the reasons stated below.
In direct violation of the Court’s Scheduling Order, the individual Defendants’ filed
a renewed motion for partial summary judgment after the dispositive motion deadline.1
Because the individual Defendants have not shown “good cause” for the untimely filing,
The Scheduling Order states that “[a]ll motions including dispositive motions shall
be heard on or before 12/17/13, at 1:00 p.m.” Dkt. 110 (emphasis in original).
their motion may be stricken. See Ammons v. Bakewell, 481 Fed. Appx. 389 (9th Cir.
2012) (“The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking [Plaintiff’s] motion for
summary judgment that he filed after the scheduling order deadline because [Plaintiff]
failed to show ‘good cause’ for the untimely filing.”) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-609 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating standard)). In addition,
the individual Defendants failed to comply with the Court’s meet and confer requirement
prior to filing their motion in violation of the Court’s Scheduling Order and the Court’s
Civil Standing Orders. See Dkt. 110; Civil Standing Orders at 1. Finally, the individual
Defendants did not seek leave of Court before filing a second motion for summary
judgment in violation of the Court’s Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 110. The law is clear that
district courts have the inherent power to control their docket, and in the exercise of that
power, they may properly strike improper documents. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg.,
Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Centillium Comms., Inc. v. Atlantic Mut.
Ins. Co., 2008 WL 728639, at *6 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (striking motion where the movant failed
to meet and confer prior to filing its motion). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to strike is
GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the individual Defendants’ renewed
motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 141) shall be STRICKEN from the record. The
parties are warned that the Court will strike any future documents filed with the Court that
do not comply with the Court’s orders. The parties are also warned that any future
transgressions of any applicable procedural rule and/or order may result in the imposition
of sanctions. This Order terminates Docket 141 and Docket 143.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge
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?