King J.D. et al v. Rumbaugh

Filing 30

MINUTE ORDER RE-NOTING plaintiffs' 26 Rule 59 MOTION Noting Date 5/19/2017, defendants' response due 5/15/17 and plaintiffs' reply due 5/15/17 by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (RS)cc plaintiffs

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. C17-00031-RSM
MINUTE ORDER RE: RULE 59
MOTION

HON. STANLEY J. RUMBAUGH,
Defendant.

16

The following MINUTE ORDER is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable

17

Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief United States District Judge: On April 6, 2017, this Court issued an

18

Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and entered Judgment, closing this case. Dkts.

19
20

#24 and #25. On May 3, 2017, the Court received the instant Motion for Rule 59 Relief from

21

Judgment. Dkt. #26. This Motion lacks a noting date and is 18 pages in length, not including

22

attachments. See id.

23

“All motions shall include in the caption… the date the motion is to be noted for

24

consideration upon the court’s motion calendar” pursuant to Local Rule 7(d). LCR 7(b)(1). A

25
26

motion brought under Rule 59 is a Third Friday Motion, properly noted no earlier than the third

27

Friday after filing. See LCR 7(d)(3). Such a motion and its opposition brief “shall not exceed

28

twelve pages,” and any reply brief “shall not exceed six pages.” LCR 7(e)(4). Motions to file

MINUTE ORDER RE: RULE 59 MOTION - 1

1

over-length motions or briefs “are disfavored” and may not be filed later than three days before

2

the underlying motion is due. LCR 7(f). Local Rule 10 sets forth the required formatting of all

3

motions filed in this Court.

4

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Rule 59 Motion exceeds the applicable page limit by six

5
6

pages, not including attachments, and deviates from the required formatting of motions in this

7

Court. Plaintiffs have failed to move to file an over-length motion, and the Court will not grant

8

such relief at this time. Accordingly, the Court will not consider Plaintiffs’ briefing after page

9

twelve and Defendant need not respond to any argument made after page twelve. Defendants’

10
11

response brief may not exceed twelve pages and Plaintiffs’ reply brief may not exceed six

12

pages. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to note Plaintiffs’ Rule 59 Motion, Dkt. #26, for

13

consideration on May 19, 2017. Defendants’ response is due May 15, 2017, and any reply brief

14

is due on May 19, 2017. LCR 7(d)(3).

15

DATED this 8th day of May, 2017.

16
17

WILLIAM McCOOL, Clerk

18

By:

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MINUTE ORDER RE: RULE 59 MOTION - 2

/s/ Rhonda Stiles
Deputy Clerk