K.S. et al v. City of Puyallup et al

Filing 53

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ALLOW CROSS MOTION granting 40 , striking 43 Motion for Summary Judgment; striking 46 Motion for Summary Judgment; renotiung 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment On All Claims to 10/24/2014. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6
7

K.S., K.K., H.M., T.K., J.H., S.B., S.C.,
T.S., C.K., D.R., L.A., & M.L.,

8
Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 13-5926 RJB
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO ALLOW CROSS MOTION

9
v.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

CITY OF PUYALLUP, a municipal
corporation, POLICE CHIEF BRYAN
JETER, LIEUTENANT EDWARD
SHANNON,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Allow a Cross Motion
(Dkt. 40) and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 32). The Court has considered
the pleadings filed regarding the motions and the remaining record.
On September 9, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 32)
seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendants’
motion and a cross motion for summary judgment in the same pleading (Dkt. 41) on September
29, 2014. Plaintiffs then refilled that same pleading two additional times and docketed it as
Summary Judgment Motions (Dkts. 43 and 46). Plaintiffs noted the additional pleadings for
consideration for October 26, 2014 (Dkt. 43), and for October 24, 2014 (Dkt. 46).

23
24
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ALLOW
CROSS MOTION- 1

1

The deadline for filing motions for summary judgment was September 9, 2014. Dkt. 7.

2 Moreover, in addition to being filed late, Plaintiffs’ pleadings (Dkts. 41, 43 and 46) exceeded the
3 page limits permitted under Local Rule W. D. Wash. 7(e)(3) by almost 10 pages.
4

On September 26, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the pending motion. Dkt. 40. They move for

5 leave to file a cross motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 40. Defendants oppose the motion.
6 Dkt. 45.
7

In the interest of fully considering all issues in the case, the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to

8 file a cross motion (Dkt. 40) should be granted. Due to Plaintiffs filing of excess pages,
9 Defendants, if they wish, may file a response of 33 pages. No further excess briefing will be
10 considered absent a showing that such briefing is required.
11

Further, in an effort to clarify the record, all but one (Dkt. 41) of Plaintiffs’ various

12 filings of the same pleading should be stricken. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ pleadings filed as (Dkts.
13 43 and 46) should be stricken as repetitive. Plaintiffs’ pleading, (filed at Dkt. 41), should be
14 considered their response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs’ Cross
15 Motion for Summary Judgment.
16

Finally, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 32) and Plaintiffs’ Cross

17 Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 41) should be renoted for October 24, 2014. These
18 motions address the same or similar issues and should be considered together.
19
20

ORDER
It is ORDERED that:

21



Plaintiffs’ Motion to Allow a Cross Motion (Dkt. 40) is GRANTED;

22



Plaintiffs’ pleadings (filed as Dkts. 43 and 46) are STRICKEN as repetitive; and

23
24
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ALLOW
CROSS MOTION- 2

1
2
3



Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 32) and Plaintiffs’ Cross Motion
for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 41) are RENOTED to October 24, 2014.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and

4 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.
5
6
7
8

Dated this 14th day of October, 2014.

A
ROBERT J. BRYAN
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ALLOW
CROSS MOTION- 3