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)

Download PDF
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

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?