Helton et al v. Factor 5, Inc. et al

Filing 146

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)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

OAKLAND DIVISION

7

JESSE HELTON; ALISHA PICCIRILLO;

Case No: C 10-04927 SBA

8 CHAD LOWE; individually and on behalf of

all others similarly situated,

ORDER

9

Plaintiffs,

Docket 141, 143

10

vs.
11

FACTOR 5, INC.; FACTOR 5, LLC;
12 BLUHARVEST, LLC; WHITEHARVEST,

LLC; JULIAN EGGEBRECHT; HOLGER
13 SCHMIDT; THOMAS ENGEL; and DOES

1-100,
14

Defendants.
15
16

On December 17, 2013, Defendants Julian Eggebrecht, Thomas Engel, and Holger

17

Schmidt (collectively, “individual Defendants”) filed a renewed motion for partial

18

summary judgment. Dkt. 141. The individual Defendants noticed the motion for hearing

19

on January 21, 2014. Dkt. 142. On December 18, 2013, Plaintiffs Jesse Helton, Alisha

20

Piccirillo, and Chad Lowe (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an ex parte application to strike

21

the individual Defendants’ motion. Dkt. 143. Having read and considered the papers filed

22

in connection with this matter and being fully informed, the Court hereby GRANTS

23

Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to strike, for the reasons stated below.

24

In direct violation of the Court’s Scheduling Order, the individual Defendants’ filed

25

a renewed motion for partial summary judgment after the dispositive motion deadline.1

26

Because the individual Defendants have not shown “good cause” for the untimely filing,

27
1

28

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).

1

their motion may be stricken. See Ammons v. Bakewell, 481 Fed. Appx. 389 (9th Cir.

2

2012) (“The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking [Plaintiff’s] motion for

3

summary judgment that he filed after the scheduling order deadline because [Plaintiff]

4

failed to show ‘good cause’ for the untimely filing.”) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth

5

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-609 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating standard)). In addition,

6

the individual Defendants failed to comply with the Court’s meet and confer requirement

7

prior to filing their motion in violation of the Court’s Scheduling Order and the Court’s

8

Civil Standing Orders. See Dkt. 110; Civil Standing Orders at 1. Finally, the individual

9

Defendants did not seek leave of Court before filing a second motion for summary

10

judgment in violation of the Court’s Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 110. The law is clear that

11

district courts have the inherent power to control their docket, and in the exercise of that

12

power, they may properly strike improper documents. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg.,

13

Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Centillium Comms., Inc. v. Atlantic Mut.

14

Ins. Co., 2008 WL 728639, at *6 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (striking motion where the movant failed

15

to meet and confer prior to filing its motion). Accordingly,

16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to strike is

17

GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the individual Defendants’ renewed

18

motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 141) shall be STRICKEN from the record. The

19

parties are warned that the Court will strike any future documents filed with the Court that

20

do not comply with the Court’s orders. The parties are also warned that any future

21

transgressions of any applicable procedural rule and/or order may result in the imposition

22

of sanctions. This Order terminates Docket 141 and Docket 143.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

12/26/2013

_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
-2-