Allen Ansari v. Patenaude & Felix, et al

Filing 29

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh in case 5:11-cv-06372-LHK; striking (64) Motion for Summary Judgment in case 5:12-cv-01245-LHK.Associated Cases: 5:12-cv-01245-LHK, 5:11-cv-06372-LHK(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ALLEN ANSARI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT PROCESSING, ) INC., a California corporation; DUSTIN K. ) FERRO, individually and in his official capacity; ) and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Case No. 5:12-CV-01245-LHK ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING 18 On April 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 64, 64-1. 19 Northern District of California Local Rule 7-2(b) provides that, for motions, the caption page, 20 notice of motion, and memorandum of points and authorities must not exceed 25 pages in length. 21 Here, the Notice of Motion is three pages long. ECF No. 64. The Memorandum of Points 22 and Authorities in support of the motion is an additional 29 pages (not including the caption page). 23 ECF No. 64-1. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is well in excess of the 25 page limit. Moreover, the Court 24 notes that rather than including Plaintiff’s citations in the text of the argument, Plaintiff has placed 25 all citations in footnotes. Had the citations been included in the text of the argument, the 26 Memorandum of Points and Authorities would have been even longer. Plaintiff did not file a 27 motion to enlarge the page limit for Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 28 1 Case No. 5:12-CV-01245-LHK ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING 1 In light of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Rule 7-2(b), the Court strikes Plaintiff’s 2 Motion for Summary Judgment. If Plaintiff wishes to move for summary judgment, Plaintiff may 3 file a new motion that complies with the Local Rules. Plaintiff shall file his new motion by April 4 24, 2013. Defendants shall file their opposition by May 8, 2013. Defendants are limited to a single 5 opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff shall file his reply by May 15, 2013. 6 In addition to striking Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court CONTINUES: 7 (1) the hearing on the parties’ motions for summary judgment from May 9, 2013 to August 29, 8 2013, at 1:30 p.m; (2) the pretrial conference from July 3, 2013 to October 24, 2013, at 2:00 p.m.; 9 (3) the trial from July 29, 2013 to November 25, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. Trial is expected to last 3 days. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 10, 2013 Dated: April 8, 2013 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case No. 5:12-CV-01245-LHK ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING

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?