Jalili v. Far East National Bank et al

Filing 29

AMENDED ORDER STRIKING OPPOSITION re 27 Order.. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 01/31/13. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2013)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

OAKLAND DIVISION

5
6 BERUZ JALILI,

Plaintiff,

7
8

vs.

9 FAR EAST NATIONAL BANK, a Federally
10
11
12
13
14

Chartered Bank; SINOPA HOLDINGS, a
Foreign Corporation; LIBERTY ASSET
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a
California Corporation; TLH-REO
MANAGEMENT, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company;
GFC SERVICE CORPORATION,
a dissolved California Corporation; and
H & Q ASIA PACIFIC II, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company,

Case No: C 12-5962 SBA
AMENDED ORDER STRIKING
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION
BRIEFS
This Order supercedes Dkt. 27
Dkt. 18, 19

Defendants.

15
16
17
18

Defendants Far East National Bank and Sinopac Holding’s motion to dismiss and

19

motion to strike are noticed for hearing on February 5, 2013. Dkt. 11, 12. On January 16,

20

2013, Plaintiff filed a twenty-one page opposition to the motion to dismiss. Dkt. 18. In

21

addition, Plaintiff’s oppositions to Defendants’ motions were e-filed with the “track-

22

changes” feature left intact, thereby rendering the briefs difficult to read.

23

The Court’s Standing Orders expressly limit motions and oppositions to fifteen

24

pages. See Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and Deadlines, Dkt. 2-1 at

25

4. The Standing Orders further state that any brief filed “in an improper manner or form

26

shall not be received or considered by the Court.” Id.; see Swanson v. U.S. Forest Serv., 87

27

F.3d 339, 345 (9th Cir. 1996) (courts have discretion to strike oversized briefs).

28

Accordingly,

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

2

1.

Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 18) and

3

Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Strike (Dkt. 19) shall be STRICKEN from the

4

record. Plaintiff is granted leave to file conforming oppositions by no later than February

5

5, 2013. The motion hearing scheduled for February 5, 2013 is CONTINUED to April 2,

6

2013 at 1:00 p.m., to coincide with the hearing scheduled on the other Defendants’ motion

7

to dismiss (Dkt. 20). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court may resolve the

8

motions without oral argument. The parties are advised the check the Court’s website to

9

determine whether an appearance is required.

10

2.

The telephonic Case Management Conference currently scheduled for

11

February 21, 2013 is CONTINUED to May 10, 2013 at 3:15 p.m. Prior to the date

12

scheduled for the conference, the parties shall meet and confer and prepare a joint Case

13

Management Conference Statement which complies with the Standing Order for All Judges

14

of the Northern District of California and the Standing Orders of this Court. Plaintiff shall

15

assume responsibility for filing the joint statement no less than seven (7) days prior to the

16

conference date. Plaintiff’s counsel is to set up the conference call with all the parties on

17

the line and call chambers at [phone]. NO PARTY SHALL CONTACT

18

CHAMBERS DIRECTLY WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE COURT.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 31, 2013

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-