McKeen-Chaplin v. Franklin American Mortgage Company

Filing 47

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING 45 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 05/01/11 (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2011) Modified on 6/2/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Kenneth A. Weber (TN State Bar No. 15730)
BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
800 Baker Donelson Center
211 Commerce Street
Nashville, TN 37201
[phone] (telephone)
[phone] (facsimile)
Christian J. Rowley (CA State Bar No. 187293)
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94105
[phone] (telephone)
[phone] (facsimile)
[e-mail]

10
11

Attorneys for Defendant
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Gina McKeen-Chaplin, individually,
on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Franklin American Mortgage Company
)
and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
____________________________________)

Case No. 10-cv-05243-SBA

ORDER

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM LOCAL RULE 7-3(a)
Case No. 10-cv-05243-SBA
N KAW 826435 v1
2907269-000003 05/27/2011

1

Defendant Franklin American Mortgage Company seeks leave to file a 35-page

2

memorandum in support of its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to conditional class certification.

3

Absent leave of court, the maximum length of an opposition memorandum is twenty-five pages.

4

Civ. L.R. 7-4(b). As grounds for the request, Defendant assert the instant action is a “complex

5

case in which Plaintiff has moved the Court to conditionally certify a nationwide FLSA

6

collective.” (Docket 45.) Moreover, Defendant maintain it has tried to limit its opposition’s

7

content to twenty-five pages, but believes it will not be able to do so. The Court finds that the

8

reasons put forth by Defendant lack merit. Defendant should be aware that arguments presented

9

in a direct and concise manner are generally more effective that those that are not. See Fleming

10

v. County of Kane, State of Ill., 855 F.2d 496, 497 (7th Cir. 1988) (“Overly long briefs, however,

11

may actually hurt a party’s case, making it far more likely that meritorious arguments will be lost

12

amid the mass of detail.”) (quoting in part United States v. Keplinger, 776 F.2d 678, 683 (7th

13

Cir.1985)); Weilert v. Health Midwest Development Group, 95 F. Supp.2d 1190, 1192 (D. Kan.

14

2000) (“Judicial economy and concise argument are purposes of the page limit.”). Accordingly,

15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant’s motion to file an oversized brief is

16

DENIED. Both parties are advised to avoid the excessive use of footnotes as a means of

17

circumscribing the page limits specified in Civil Local Rules 7-2(a), 7-3(a) and 7-3(c).

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

DATED: May 1, 2011.

21

__________________________________
SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG
Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of California

22
23
24
25
26
27
2

28

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM LOCAL RULE 7-3(a)
Case No. 10-cv-05243-SBA
N KAW 826435 v1
2907269-000003 05/27/2011