Wheat v. State of California et al

Filing 43

ORDER, Motions terminated: 38 MOTION for Leave to File 50 Page Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed by Derek Wheat, Shandon Davis, Antonio Martinez., Set/Reset Deadlines as to 38 MOTION for Leave to File 50 Page Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, 31 MOTION to Dismiss DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 8 AND 12; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF SAME. Motion Hearing set for 11/14/2011 01:00 PM before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/28/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

OAKLAND DIVISION

9

DEREK WHEAT, a current parolee,

Case No: C 11-2026 SBA

10 ANTONIO MARTINEZ, a current

parolee, and SHANDON DAVIS, a
11 felon currently serving a determinate

sentence, on behalf of themselves and a
12 class of similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

13
14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE 50-PAGE
OPPOSITION
Dkt. 38

vs.

15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
16

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiffs have filed Motion for Administrative Relief Allowing Plaintiffs to File a

19

50 Page Opposition to Defendants’ Second (15 Page) Motion to Dismiss the First Amended

20

Complaint. Dkt. 38. The Court notes that it previously limited Defendants’ motion to

21

dismiss to 15 pages. A 50-page response to a 15-page motion is therefore unnecessary and

22

excessive. See Fleming v. County of Kane, State of Ill., 855 F.2d 496, 497 (7th Cir. 1988)

23

(“[o]verly long briefs . . . may actually hurt a party’s case, making it ‘far more likely that

24

meritorious arguments will be lost amid the mass of detail.’”) (quoting in part United States

25

v. Keplinger, 776 F.2d 678, 683 (7th Cir. 1985)). Accordingly,

26

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file an

27

oversized opposition is DENIED. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a revised opposition,

28

not to exceed 15 pages, by no later than October 5, 2011. Defendants may file a revised

1

reply by October 12, 2011. The motion hearing and case management conference

2

scheduled for October 4, 2011 are CONTINUED to November 14, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. The

3

Court, in its discretion, may resolve the motion without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P.

4

78(b); Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The parties are advised to check the Court’s website to determine

5

whether a court appearance is required. Docket 36 shall be STRICKEN from the record.

6

This order terminates Docket 38.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 28, 2011

_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-