Williams & Cochrane, LLP v. Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation et al

Filing 157

ORDER Regarding Defendants' Responses to Order to Show Cause ( 155 , 156 ). Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 9/10/18.(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01436-GPC-MDD

WILLIAMS & COCHRANE, LLP, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

QUECHAN TRIBE OF THE FORT
YUMA INDIAN RESERVATION, et al.,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[ECF Nos. 155, 156]

Defendants.

Defendants Robert Rosette, Rosette & Associates, PC, Rosette, LLP, and Richard
Armstrong filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Sixth Claim for Relief and a separate
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Claims for Relief and to Strike
Portions of the Second Amended Complaint. ECF Nos. 109, 110. Both Motions were
noticed for the same hearing day, October 12, 2018. Defendants Quechan Tribe, Keeny
Escalanti, and Mark White also filed a Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 115.
On September 7, 2018, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Regarding
Defendants’ Noncompliance with Local Rule 7.1(h). Defendants have promptly
responded to the Court’s Order. Local Rule 7.1(h) provides that briefs or memoranda in
support of or in opposition to all motions noticed for the same motion day must not
exceed 25 pages in length, per party, absent leave of the Court. As the Rosette
1
3:17-cv-01436-GPC-MDD

1

Defendants note, the Local Rules do not appear to speak on the matter, but courts within

2

this district calculate page lengths by excluding caption pages and tables. See, e.g., Freas

3

v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 3:17-cv-01761-H-AGS, 2017 WL 6345393, at *3 (S.D. Cal.

4

Dec. 12, 2017). Accordingly, the Quechan Defendants’ Memorandum in support of their

5

Motion to Dismiss complies with Local Rule 7.1(h). See ECF No. 115-1.

6

The Rosette Defendants are not in compliance. These Defendants have filed 25-

7

page and 23-page briefs, excluding caption pages and tables, in support of motions

8

noticed for the same day. ECF Nos. 109-1, 110-1. The Rosette Defendants retroactively

9

request leave to exceed the page limit for their presently filed motions. ECF No. 155 at

10

3. The Rosette Defendants note that Local Rule 7.1(h) limits memoranda to 25 pages

11

“per party,” and that the Rosette Defendants comprise four parties. Id. But the Rosette

12

Defendants have not explained if or how their memoranda addresses arguments unique to

13

any of the Defendants, rather than just argumentation applicable to all Rosette

14

Defendants, such that leave to exceed the page limit would be warranted.

15

However, given that Plaintiffs have filed their oppositions to the Rosette

16

Defendants, the Court will allow Rosette Defendants excessive briefs in this instance.

17

The Rosette Defendants “note that the parties appear to have fallen into this approach [of

18

non-compliance] throughout the case.” ECF No. 155 at 3. Nevertheless, the Court is

19

optimistic that, going forward, such practice will end. All parties are forewarned that

20

they must comply with the brief length provided by the Local Rules or seek leave of the

21

Court before filing an excessive brief. Failure to do so may result in the Court summarily

22

denying the motion without further notice.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 10, 2018

25
26
27
28
2
3:17-cv-01436-GPC-MDD