Trabakoolas et al v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 84

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT WATTS PLUMBING TECHNOLOGIES(TAIZHOU)CO. LTD.'S MOTION TO STRIKE re 82 MOTION to Strike Inadmisisble Evidence Offered by Plaintiffs in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction filed by Watts Plumbing Technologies (Taizho) Co., Ltd.. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 9/18/12. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2012)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10

JASON TRABAKOOLAS and SHIELA
STETSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

14
15
16

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT WATTS
PLUMBING TECHNOLOGIES (TAIZHOU) CO.
LTD.’S MOTION TO STRIKE

Plaintiffs,

12
13

Case No.: 12-CV-01172-YGR

vs.
WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et
al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Defendant Watts Plumbing Technologies (Taizhou) Co., Ltd. (“Taizhou”) has filed a

19

Motion to Strike Inadmissible Evidence Offered by Plaintiffs in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

20

for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (“Motion”). Taizhou has noticed the hearing on this Motion for

21

September 25, 2012. The Court hereby STRIKES the Motion as not filed in compliance with Local

22

Rule 7-2(a) (absent other order, motions must be served and noticed for hearing not less than 35

23

days after service). Moreover, the motion appears to be no more than an evidentiary objection

24

submitted in a separate document, contrary to Local Rule 7-3(a) and (c) (evidentiary objections

25

must be contained within the brief or memorandum). In addition, Taizhou has circumvented the

26

page limitation in the Local Rules for reply briefs with the combined length of the objection and its

27

brief. See Civ. L.R. 7-3(c).

28

1

This is the second time that counsel for Defendants in this action has failed to comply with

2

the Local Rules regarding the proper noticing of hearings. (Dkt. No. 42.) Sanctions may issue for

3

future attempts to circumvent the Local Rules.

4

Taizhou’s Motion to Strike is STRICKEN as improperly-filed and noticed. No further

5

briefing is permitted on the Motion to Strike. Notwithstanding, the Court considers only

6

admissible, relevant evidence.

7

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 82.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: September 18, 2012

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2