United States of America et al v. Tuft Shared Services, Inc. et al
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered.The Court has reviewed the memorandum as well as the moving papers (which conform to the page limits) and finds no basis to authorize a filing exceeding the limits imposed by the Local Rule. Accordingly , the Court STRIKES Karvelas' opposition and related filings (Doc. Nos. 33, 34).Karvelas may file a revised opposition in compliance with the Local Rules provided he does by November 1, 2019.A copy of this Order has been mailed to Mr. Karvelas. (Montes, Mariliz)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
TUFTS SHARED SERVICES, INC.
d/b/a TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER, INC., )
LESLIE LUSSIER, individually,
THERESA HUDSON-JINKS, individually, )
and ALBERT FANTASIA, individually,
Civil No. 18-11260-LTS
ORDER ON KARVELAS’ MOTION OF OPPOSITION OF DISMISSAL OF THE
COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 34)
October 16, 2019
On August 29, 2019, John Karvelas filed his Motion of Opposition of Dismissal of the
Complaint, Doc. No. 33, in response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim, Doc. No. 31. Subsequently, on September 23, 2019, Karvelas refiled the Motion and
supplemented it with over 900 pages of exhibits. Doc. No. 34.
As submitted, Karvelas’ opposition is in violation of the local rules of motion practice
observed by this Court: “Memoranda supporting or opposing allowance of motions shall not,
without leave of the court, exceed 20 pages, double-spaced.” Local R. 7.1(b)(4). Karvelas has
not sought leave to file an excess-length memorandum. The Court has reviewed the
memorandum as well as the moving papers (which conform to the page limits) and finds no basis
to authorize a filing exceeding the limits imposed by the Local Rule. Accordingly, the Court
STRIKES Karvelas’ opposition and related filings (Doc. Nos. 33, 34).
Karvelas may file a revised opposition in compliance with the Local Rules provided he
does by November 1, 2019. The Court notes that Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint.
Under the rules applicable to such a motion, the Court considers only the allegations set forth in
the Complaint. Doc. No. 20. The pending motion to dismiss does not authorize consideration by
the Court of additional factual material. In limited circumstances, courts do consider, on a
motion to dismiss, documents sufficiently incorporated into a complaint (such as a contract), or
certain official public records, provided such documents are sufficiently referred to in the
complaint and their authenticity is not disputed. Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.
1993). The supplementary information provided by Karvelas does not appear to meet any of
these narrow exceptions.
Karvelas’ revised opposition is due by November 1, 2019. Doc. No. 33 and Doc. No. 34
/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Leo T. Sorokin
United States District Judge
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?