Inland Concrete Enterprise, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, et al v. Kraft Americas, et al.
ORDER by District Judge William P. Johnson STRIKING 17 Defendant Rune Krafts Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. (mag)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
INLAND CONCRETE ENTERPRISES, INC.
EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN,
KRAFT AMERICAS, L.P., A LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, RUNE KRAFT, AN INDIVIDUAL,
and Does 1 through 5,
ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Rune Kraft’s Motion for Rule 11
Sanctions (Doc. 17), filed December 9, 2016. Kraft brings the Motion pro se on behalf of
himself as well as Defendant Kraft Americas, L.P. The rules governing the practice of law in
this federal district court, specifically local rule D.N.M. LR-Civ 83.7, provides that a
corporation, partnership or business entity other than a natural person must be represented by an
attorney authorized to practice before this Court. Kraft Americas, L.P. is not represented by
counsel in this matter. Kraft, who does not even purport to be an attorney, cannot therefore
legally represent Kraft Americas, L.P. pursuant to Rule 83.7. Although the Motion does not
specify on whose behalf it is filed, its contents clearly show it purports to argue the position of
Kraft Americas, L.P., in violation of Rule 83.7
The Court also takes this opportunity to point out the Court’s local rules governing page
limits for briefs. D.N.M. LR-Civ 7.5 provides that a motion cannot exceed twenty-seven (27)
double-spaced pages. A reply brief must not exceed twelve (12) double-spaced pages. Kraft’s
Motion is 30 pages, and the Reply is 48 pages. Both briefs exceed this Court’s page limits.
Therefore, the Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (Doc. 17) is STRIKEN for failure to
comply with Rules 83.7 and 7.5. Kraft may refile a Motion that complies with Rule 83.7 and
Rule 7.5 within ten (10) days following the entry of this Order.
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?