Adobe Systems Incorporated v. A & S Electronics, Inc. et al

Filing 52

ORDER STRIKING NON-COMPLIANT MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Saundra B. Armstrong on 10/16/15. (napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2015)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

OAKLAND DIVISION

5
6 ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, a

Case No: C 15-2288 SBA

Delaware Corporation,
7

Plaintiff,

ORDER STRIKING NONCOMPLIANT MOTIONS

8

vs.

Dkt. 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51

9

A & S ELECTRONICS, INC., a California
10 Corporation d/b/a TRUSTPRICE; ALAN Z.

LIN, an Individual; and DOES 1-10,
11 Inclusive,
12

Defendants.

13
14

The Court’s Standing Orders specify that the maximum page limit for motions and

15

oppositions thereto is fifteen pages. Dkt. 16. The Standing Orders further state that any

16

brief filed “in an improper manner or form shall not be received or considered by the

17

Court.” Id.; see Swanson v. U.S. Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339, 345 (9th Cir. 1996) (courts

18

have discretion to strike oversized briefs).

19

Defendants have filed a nineteen-page motion to dismiss and a separate six-page

20

motion for more definite statement. Dkt. 44, 46. In response, Plaintiff filed two fifteen-

21

page oppositions, one in response to each motion. Defendants’ motion to dismiss clearly

22

violates the Court’s Standing Orders. Dkt. 47, 48. In addition, the Court finds that

23

Defendants’ filing of a separate motion for a more definite statement is excessive. Such a

24

motion should have been brought in the alternative to a motion to dismiss—not as a

25

separate, stand-alone motion. See Schwarzer et al, Prac. Guide Fed. Civ. Proc. Before Trial

26

(Nat Ed.) ¶ 9:13 (TRG 2014). Accordingly,

27
28

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT all briefs filed in connection with Defendants’
motion to dismiss and motion for a more definite statement are STRICKEN. The Clerk

1

shall strike Dkt. 44, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51 from the record. Defendants are granted leave to

2

file a combined motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion for a more definite

3

statement within seven days of the date this Order is filed. Plaintiff shall file a single

4

opposition brief no later than seven days after the motion is filed. Defendants’ reply shall

5

be filed three days after Plaintiffs file their opposition. The parties’ stipulation to advance

6

the hearing date from December 9, 2015, to November 12, 2015, is DENIED as moot.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 10/16/15

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-