Yates v. Sweet Potato Enterprise, Inc. et al

Filing 43

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).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

OAKLAND DIVISION

7
8 CRAIG YATES, an individual,

Plaintiff,

9
10

Case No: C 11-01950
SBA
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS IN LIMINE

vs.

11 SWEET POTATO ENTERPRISES, INC., a

California corporation dba POPEYES STORE
12 # 2794; et al.,
13

Defendants.

14
15

On May 25, 2012, the Court issued an Order for Pretrial Preparation which, inter

16

alia, specified various deadlines and requirements for the filing of the parties’ pretrial

17

submissions. Dkt. 17. With regard to motions in limine, the Order stated:

18
19
20
21
22
23

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,

24

42. In direct violation of the aforementioned Order, Plaintiff filed a fifteen-page brief,

25

without requesting or obtaining prior leave of Court to file an oversized memorandum.

26

Plaintiff also failed to include a certification that he met and conferred with Defendants

27

prior to filing his motions, as required by this Court’s Standing Orders. The Court

28

therefore strikes Plaintiff’s improperly-filed motions in limine from the record. See Smith

1

v. Frank, 923 F.2d 139, 142 (9th Cir. 1991) (“For violations of the local rules, sanctions

2

may be imposed including, in appropriate cases, striking the offending pleading.”). The

3

Court sua sponte grants Plaintiff leave to refile his motions in limine in accordance with the

4

Court’s prior order after he has first met and conferred with Defendants regarding each and

5

every issue raised in his eight in limine motions. However, Plaintiff shall show cause why

6

he and/or his counsel should not be sanctioned for violating the Orders of this Court. See

7

Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644, 648-49 (9th Cir. 1997).

8

Accordingly,

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

10

1.

Plaintiff’s motions in limine (Dkt. 42) shall be STRICKEN from the record.

11

2.

The parties shall meet and confer regarding the issues presented to the Court

12

in their respective motions in limine. After doing so, Plaintiff may re-file his motions in

13

limine in a single memorandum, not to exceed ten (10) pages in length. The Court will not

14

consider any motions in limine unless the parties have certified in writing that they have

15

met and conferred, in good faith, as to each and every issue presented to the Court in the

16

motions.

17

3.

Plaintiff shall refile his motions in limine by no later than close of business on

18

February 18, 2013. Defendants shall file their opposition thereto by February 22, 2013, and

19

Plaintiff shall file his reply by February 26, 2013.

20

4.

By no later than February 20, 2013, Plaintiff shall a memorandum, not to

21

exceed five (5) pages, showing cause why the Court should not impose monetary sanctions

22

against him and/or his counsel for violating the Court’s Order for Pretrial Preparation and

23

Standing Orders.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 14, 2013

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

26
27
28
-2-