Golden Gate Village Election Committee et al v. Marin Housing Authority et al

Filing 45

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILINGS, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition (one document)filed by 4/23/2013. Plaintiffs' Reply to their motion/opposition (one document)filed by 4/30/2013. Motion Hearing reset for 6/4/2013 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 4/16/13. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2013)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

GOLDEN GATE VILLAGE ELECTION
COMMITTEE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

7
8
9
10

Case No.: 12-cv-04226-YGR
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY
JUDGMENT FILINGS

vs.
MARIN HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants.

11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

The Court previously granted the parties leave to file cross-motions for summary judgment.

13

(Dkt. No. 16.) Plaintiffs filed their motion on April 1, 2013, including a separate statement of

14

undisputed facts as required by this Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases.

15

Defendants filed two separate documents in response: an opposition to Plaintiffs’ summary

16

judgment motion (Dkt. No. 30) and their own motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 20). The

17

Court’s Order did not authorize the filing of an opposition and a separate motion for summary

18

judgment. The Court intended that one document be filed (i.e., a cross-motion/opposition), as is the

19

normal practice in this district for cross-motions. By filing an opposition and separate motion,

20

Defendants have exceeded the 25-page limit otherwise provided by the Local Rules for a single

21

motion or opposition.

22

Defendants are hereby ORDERED to re-file their motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 20)

23

and opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion (Dkt. No. 30) as one document in compliance with this Order, the

24

Court’s Standing Order, and the Local Rules. The Court hereby STRIKES Defendants’ previous

25

filings at Dkt. Nos. 20–39.

26
27
28

The Court notes that Defendants did not file a responsive separate statement in compliance
with the Court’s Standing Order. Defendants are ORDERED to review the Court’s Standing Order in

1

Civil Cases regarding summary judgment motions and to comply with the requirements therein,

2

including a responsive separate statement in the required format.

3

Moreover, the Court notes that Defendants filed their various declarations and exhibits as

4

separate docket entries. When filing future documents, Defendants should link exhibits to their

5

corresponding declarations, rather than making each exhibit its own docket entry. Defendants may

6

contact the ECF Help Desk if they have questions.

7

Defendants’ revised filings shall be filed by April 23, 2013. Plaintiffs’ reply to their

8

motion/opposition to the cross-motion (which shall also be filed as one document) shall be filed by

9

April 30, 2013. A reply to the cross-motion (sur-reply) will only be permitted upon request. The

10
11

hearing shall be rescheduled to June 4, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.
As previously stated in Dkt. No. 16, the Court requests chambers copies in binders with an

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

index and tabs. In addition, documents should contain the ECF header reflecting docket item number

13

and filing date. Copies may be double-sided.

14

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 20. The Clerk shall strike Dkt. Nos. 20–39 from the record.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: April 16, 2013

_________________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2