Shahrivar v. City of San Jose et al

Filing 124

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal denying 123 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FARID SHAHRIVAR,

8

Plaintiff,
v.

9

CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
VACATE JUDGMENT
(Re: Docket No. 123)

10

13

Case No. 10-cv-01029-PSG

Before the court is a motion by Plaintiff Farid Shahrivar under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) and
72(b) to vacate its judgment in favor of Defendants City of San Jose and a number of City
employees.1 The motion takes issue with the court’s rulings in its order granting Defendants’
motion to dismiss.2 Although Civ. L.R. 7-2(b) requires that moving papers, including those in
support of Rule 60 motions, “not exceed[] 25 pages in length,” Shahrivar’s papers are 28 pages
long.3 Shahrivar did not seek leave to file additional pages, and he is represented by experienced
counsel. Also, because the parties here have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction,4 Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b) does not apply. Because the Ninth Circuit has made clear that district courts should
hold parties to the federal and local civil rules,5 Shahrivar’s motion is DENIED.

21
22

See Docket No. 123; see also Docket No. 121.

2

See Docket No. 120.

3

See Docket No. 123.

4

23

1

See Docket No. 47.

24
25
26
5

27
28

See In re Corrinet, 645 F.3d 1141, 1146 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S.
183, 191 (2010)); United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 808 (9th Cir. 2008); SEC v. McCarthy,
1
Case No. 10-cv-01029-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT

1

SO ORDERED.

2

Dated: December 9, 2015

3
4

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
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

322 F.3d 650, 657 (9th Cir. 2003); Savarese v. Edrick Transfer & Storage, Inc., 513 F.2d 140, 147
(9th Cir. 1975); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 83(b) (“A judge may regulate practice in any manner
consistent with federal law, rules adopted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072 and 2075, and the district's
local rules.”).
2
Case No. 10-cv-01029-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT