Buffin et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 299

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR CLARIFICATION REGARDING CBAA'S SEPARATELY FILED CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT re 297 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Strike and for Clarification regarding CBAA's Separately Filed C ross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Riana Buffin, Crystal Patterson. CBAA'S opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and cross-motion for summary judgment are STRICKEN. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 10/26/18. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

RIANA BUFFIN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

7
8
9
10

CASE NO. 15-cv-04959-YGR

vs.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET
AL.,
Defendants.

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
STRIKE AND FOR CLARIFICATION
REGARDING CBAA’S SEPARATELY FILED
CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 297

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The Court is in receipt of plaintiffs Riana Buffin’s and Crystal Patterson’s Motion to Strike

13

and for Clarification Regarding the California Bail Agents Association’s (“CBAA”) Separately

14

Filed Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 297), and CBAA’s opposition thereto (Dkt.

15

No. 298). Having carefully considered the papers submitted, and for the reasons set forth below,

16

the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

This Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases (“Standing Order”) provides, in relevant part,
as follows:
Any cross-motion for summary judgment shall be contained within the opposition to
any motion for summary judgment [and] shall contain twenty-five (25) pages or less
. . . . The reply to a motion may contain up to fifteen (15) pages [and] shall include
the opposition to any cross-motion . . . .
(Standing Order ¶ 9(e).) In accordance therewith, the Court instructed CBAA at the pretrial
conference held on September 7, 2018 not to file a separate cross-motion simultaneously with
plaintiffs’ motion so as to avoid extra briefing. (Pretrial Conference Transcript (“Tr.”) at 53:11–
14, Dkt. No. 280.)
Despite the Court’s Standing Order and instruction at the pretrial conference, CBAA filed
two briefs on October 19, 2018: (i) a 24-page opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment (Dkt. No. 294); and (ii) a 25-page cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 295).

1

In justification thereof, CBAA points to the prior round of cross-motions for summary judgment in

2

this case, in which plaintiffs and CBAA each filed their own 25-page motion, 25-page opposition,

3

and 15-page reply, totaling six briefs. However, the prior summary judgment motion practice in

4

this case does not excuse present nonconformance with the Court’s Standing Order.1
Accordingly, CBAA’s opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and its

5
6

cross-motion for summary judgment are STRICKEN. CBAA is hereby Ordered to file a single

7

brief, of no more than twenty-five (25) pages, which contains both their opposition and cross-

8

motion, pursuant to ¶ 9(e) of the Standing Order. Such brief must be filed by no later than

9

Thursday, November 1, 2018. Plaintiffs will have until Tuesday, November 20, 2018 to file
their single fifteen (15)-page brief consisting of both their reply in support of their motion for

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

summary judgment and their opposition to CBAA’s cross-motion. CBAA’s fifteen (15)-page

12

reply in support of its cross-motion shall be due on Tuesday, December 4, 2018. The briefing

13

schedule regarding plaintiffs’ motion to revoke CBAA’s intervenor status (Dkt. No. 287) shall

14

remain unchanged. However, the hearing on all motions is CONTINUED to Tuesday, January 8,

15

2018 at 2:00 p.m. in the Federal Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California in Courtroom

16

1.

17

As for plaintiffs’ request for clarification regarding arguments previously ruled on by the

18

Court, plaintiffs are incorrect that CBAA was required to seek leave to file a motion for

19

reconsideration pertaining to the appropriate standard of review in this case. Indeed, the Court

20

explained at the pretrial conference with respect to the recent Fifth and Eleventh Circuit decisions

21

in ODonnell and Walker: “It’s not binding authority. . . . So it doesn’t fall within the

22

administrative motion because there is no change in the law in the Ninth Circuit. But certainly it

23

can be raised as additional authority in opposition – or your – your own cross-motion.” (See Tr.

24

at 54:24–55:5.) While the Court is not inclined to revisit the governing standard of review absent

25
26
27
28

1

CBAA correctly notes that plaintiffs were required to file either a stipulation pursuant to
Civil Local Rule (“L.R.”) 7-12 or a declaration explaining why a stipulation could not be obtained.
L.R. 7-11(a). Plaintiffs’ counsel should know better. However, given the high likelihood that
CBAA would have refused to strike one of its two briefs voluntarily, the Court declines to strike
plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs’ counsel is advised that in the future, the Court may strike plaintiffs’
filings for failure to comply with the Local Rules.
2

1

binding authority on the issue, the Court leaves to CBAA the choice to use its limited pages as it

2

sees fit.

3

This Order terminates Docket Number 297.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: October 26, 2018
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3