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).

Download PDF
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-

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?