Till et al v. Saks Incorporated et al

Filing 69

ORDER STRIKING NON COMPLIANT BRIEFS, Motions terminated: 42 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Mary Josephs, Dawn Till, 30 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Deny Class Certification file d by Mary Josephs, Dawn Till, 26 MOTION to Deny Class Certification and Reject Conditional Certification filed by Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc., Saks & Company, Saks Incorporated.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/11/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2012)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

OAKLAND DIVISION

5
6 DAWN TILL and MARY JOSEPHS,

individually, and on behalf of all others
7 similarly situated,

ORDER STRIKING NONCOMPLIANT BRIEFS

Plaintiff,

8
9

Case No: C 11-0504 SBA

vs.

10 SAKS INCORPORATED, a Tennessee

corporation; SAKS FIFTH AVENUE, INC., a
11 Massachusetts corporation; SAKS &

COMPANY, a New York corporation; and
12 SAKS FIFTH AVENUE OFF FIFTH,
13

Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

The Court’s Standing Orders in effect since July 1, 2011, impose page limits on
motions, as follows:
Page Limits: All noticed motions (other than motions for
summary judgment) and any opposition thereto, shall not
exceed fifteen (15) pages in length, exclusive of the table of
contents, table of authorities, exhibits and declarations, if
required. Reply briefs may not exceed ten (10) pages in length.
Motions for summary judgment are subject to the page limits
set forth in Civil Local Rule 7.3.

21

Id. at 4. The Standing Orders further state that any brief filed “in an improper manner or

22

form shall not be received or considered by the Court.” Id.

23

Defendants have filed a twenty-five page Motion to Deny Class Certification and

24

Reject Conditional Certification. Dkt. 26. Plaintiffs filed a twenty-three page opposition to

25

the motion. Dkt. 33. Separately, Plaintiffs filed a twenty-five page Motion for Class

26

Certification, Dkt. 42, to which Defendants filed a twenty-five page opposition, Dkt. 58,

27

and Plaintiffs filed a fifteen-page reply, Dkt. 60. Prior leave of Court was neither sought

28

nor obtained by the parties to file these oversized briefs. The Court will not consider the

1

parties’ non-compliant briefs. See Swanson v. U.S. Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339, 345 (9th Cir.

2

1996) (courts have discretion to strike oversized briefs). Nonetheless, the Court will afford

3

the parties an opportunity to rectify their violations of the Court’s Standing Orders.

4

Accordingly,

5

IT IS HERBY ORDERED THAT:

6

1.

Defendants’ Motion to Deny Class Certification and Reject Conditional

7

Certification and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and related briefs, Dkt. 26, 33,

8

42, 58 and 60, are STRICKEN from the record.

9
10

2.

The parties’ may resubmit their respective motions, consistent with the

Court’s Standing Orders, in accordance with the following schedule:

11

a.

Motions due by September 25, 2012.

12

b.

Oppositions due by October 2, 2012.

13

c.

Replies due by October 9, 2012.

14

The parties need not refile their supporting declarations. However, parties’ respective

15

memoranda shall include references to the docket number corresponding to the previously-

16

filed declarations.

17

3.

Prior to refiling their motions, the parties shall meet and confer in person or

18

by telephone in an effort to narrow the issues presented in their motions. The parties’ meet

19

and confer conference shall include the Plaintiffs from Tate-Small v. Saks Inc., No. C 12-

20

3903 SBA, to determine whether the renewed motions should include that action, as well.

21

4.

The motions will be taken under submission as of the date the replies are due.

22

No hearing will be held in connection with the motion unless otherwise ordered by the

23

Court.

24

5.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

This Order terminates Docket 26, 30 and 42.

Dated: September 11, 2012

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

27
28
-2-