Pimental v. Google, Inc. et al

Filing 48

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Jessica Franklin, Nicole Pimental. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Balabanian, Rafey) (Filed on 12/7/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

SEAN P. REIS (SBN 184044)
([e-mail])
EDELSON MCGUIRE LLP
30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
JORDAN L. LURIE (130013)
([e-mail])
JOEL E. ELKINS (256020)
([e-mail])
WEISS & LURIE
10940 Wilshire Blvd, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[Additional counsel appearing on signature page]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16

NICOLE PIMENTAL and JESSICA
FRANKLIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,

17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
SLIDE, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AN OVERSIZED BRIEF

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-cv-02585-SBA
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
OVERSIZED BRIEF

1

Plaintiffs Nicole Pimental and Jessica Franklin (collectively “Plaintiffs”), respectfully

2

move this Court under Local Rule 7-11 for leave to file their Opposition to Defendants’

3

Motion to Dismiss in excess of the Court’s fifteen-page limitation.1 In support thereof,

4

Plaintiffs state as follows:

5

1.

Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint on September 14,

6

2011, alleging a cause of action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. §

7

227) (“TCPA”). (Dkt. No. 24.)

8
9

2.

On October 14, 2011, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No.

29.) The hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is presently set for February 28, 2012.

10

3.

Defendants’ Motion seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Complaint on numerous

11

grounds, including: (1) that Plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead the necessary elements under

12

the TCPA; (2) that the TCPA as applied in this case would violate the First Amendment; (3)

13

that legislative history and FCC regulations do not support application of the TCPA to

14

noncommercial text messages; (4) that the TCPA is not narrowly tailored; and (5) that

15

application of the TCPA to the facts in this case would foreclose alternative channels of

16

speech.

17
18

4.

to twenty-five pages.

19
20

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-4(b), an opposition to a motion to dismiss may be up

5.

Pursuant to this Court’s Standing Order, an opposition to a motion to dismiss

is limited to fifteen pages.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs acknowledge that this administrative motion is untimely and should have
been filed prior to or concurrently with Plaintiffs’ Opposition. Plaintiffs’ respectfully request
that, in light of Plaintiffs’ good faith error in not timely requesting leave to file an oversized
brief, and that the hearing on Defendants’ Motion is over two months away, the Court use its
discretion to consider Plaintiffs’ request to file an oversized brief subsequent to Plaintiffs
filing their Opposition. (Dkt. No. 40.)
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMIN. MOT. FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AN OVERSIZED BRIEF

1

6.

Although Plaintiffs consulted the Local Rules to ensure their brief complied

2

with the requirements of this District, they inadvertently overlooked this Court’s Standing

3

Order limitation on the length of briefs in civil actions.

4

7.

However, Defendants’ Motion raised complex and novel constitutional issues,

5

which necessitated comprehensive and well-developed arguments to properly oppose.

6

(Declaration of Rafey S. Balabanian ¶ 3, a true and correct copy of which is attached as

7

Exhibit A.) To fully address the issues raised in Defendants’ Motion, provide the Court with

8

a complete argument, and ensure that Plaintiffs’ interests are fully protected, Plaintiffs

9

prepared and filed an opposition totaling just over 22 pages, which is approximately seven

10

and a half pages over this Court’s limitation. (Dkt. No. 40) (Balabanian Decl. ¶ 4.) While

11

Plaintiffs made their best efforts to present their arguments in opposition to Defendants’

12

Motion as succinctly as possible, the additional seven pages was needed to effectively lay out

13

Plaintiffs’ position. (Balabanian Decl. ¶ 5.)

14

8.

On December 6, 2011, Plaintiffs’ counsel conferred with counsel for

15

Defendants regarding the need for an oversize brief and following that discussion,

16

Defendants withdrew their motion to strike Plaintiffs’ opposition brief.

17

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, respectfully request that this Court grant them leave to

18

file a brief totaling approximately 23 pages, and award such other and further relief as the

19

Court deems equitable and just.

20

Respectfully submitted,

21

EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC

22

By: /s/ Rafey S. Balabanian

23
24
25
26
27
28

RAFEY S. BALABANIAN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
([e-mail])
CHRISTOPHER L. DORE (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
([e-mail])
EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC
350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60654
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMIN. MOT. FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AN OVERSIZED BRIEF

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Telephone: [phone]
SEAN REIS (SBN 184044)
([e-mail])
EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLP
30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
SCOTT D. OWENS (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
([e-mail])
LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT D. OWENS, ESQ.
2000 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 106
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
JORDAN L. LURIE (SBN 130013)
([e-mail])
JOEL E. ELKINS (SBN 256020)
([e-mail])
WEISS & LURIE
10940 Wilshire Boulevard, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90024
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
STEFAN COLEMAN
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, PLLC
1072 Madison Ave, Suite 1
Lakewood, NJ 08701
Telephone: [phone]

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

PLAINTIFFS’ ADMIN. MOT. FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AN OVERSIZED BRIEF

1
2
3
4
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Rafey S. Balabanian, an attorney, certify that on December 7, 2011, I served the
above and foregoing Administrative Motion for Leave to File an Oversized Brief, by
causing true and accurate copies of such paper to be filed with the Court and transmitted to
all counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system.

6

/s/ Rafey S. Balabanian

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

PLAINTIFFS’ ADMIN. MOT. FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AN OVERSIZED BRIEF