Yates v. Sweet Potato Enterprise, Inc. et al
ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong STRIKING 42 Motion in Limine. Plaintiff shall re-file his motions in limine by no later than 02/18/13. Defendants shall file their Opposition by no later than 02/22/13. Plaintiff's Reply due by 02/26/13. Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause due by no later than 02/20/13. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 02/14/13 (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2013) Modified on 2/15/2013 (jlm, COURT STAFF).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8 CRAIG YATES, an individual,
Case No: C 11-01950
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS IN LIMINE
11 SWEET POTATO ENTERPRISES, INC., a
California corporation dba POPEYES STORE
12 # 2794; et al.,
On May 25, 2012, the Court issued an Order for Pretrial Preparation which, inter
alia, specified various deadlines and requirements for the filing of the parties’ pretrial
submissions. Dkt. 17. With regard to motions in limine, the Order stated:
All motions in limine and any opposition thereto shall be set
forth in a single memorandum, not to exceed ten (10) pages in
length. Reply briefs may not exceed six (6) pages. Any request
to exceed the page limit must be submitted prior to the deadline
for these briefs and must be supported by a showing of good
cause and a certification that the applicant has met and
conferred with the opposing party.
Id. at 5 (emphasis added).
On February 12, 2013, the parties filed their respective motions in limine. Dkt. 41,
42. In direct violation of the aforementioned Order, Plaintiff filed a fifteen-page brief,
without requesting or obtaining prior leave of Court to file an oversized memorandum.
Plaintiff also failed to include a certification that he met and conferred with Defendants
prior to filing his motions, as required by this Court’s Standing Orders. The Court
therefore strikes Plaintiff’s improperly-filed motions in limine from the record. See Smith
v. Frank, 923 F.2d 139, 142 (9th Cir. 1991) (“For violations of the local rules, sanctions
may be imposed including, in appropriate cases, striking the offending pleading.”). The
Court sua sponte grants Plaintiff leave to refile his motions in limine in accordance with the
Court’s prior order after he has first met and conferred with Defendants regarding each and
every issue raised in his eight in limine motions. However, Plaintiff shall show cause why
he and/or his counsel should not be sanctioned for violating the Orders of this Court. See
Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644, 648-49 (9th Cir. 1997).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiff’s motions in limine (Dkt. 42) shall be STRICKEN from the record.
The parties shall meet and confer regarding the issues presented to the Court
in their respective motions in limine. After doing so, Plaintiff may re-file his motions in
limine in a single memorandum, not to exceed ten (10) pages in length. The Court will not
consider any motions in limine unless the parties have certified in writing that they have
met and conferred, in good faith, as to each and every issue presented to the Court in the
Plaintiff shall refile his motions in limine by no later than close of business on
February 18, 2013. Defendants shall file their opposition thereto by February 22, 2013, and
Plaintiff shall file his reply by February 26, 2013.
By no later than February 20, 2013, Plaintiff shall a memorandum, not to
exceed five (5) pages, showing cause why the Court should not impose monetary sanctions
against him and/or his counsel for violating the Court’s Order for Pretrial Preparation and
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 14, 2013
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?