Liu v. Terry

N.D. California

Liu v. Terry

DecidedApril 19, 2021

Docket3:21-cv-01179

StatusUnknown

This text of Liu v. Terry (Liu v. Terry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Liu v. Terry, (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ZHENG LIU, Case No. 21-cv-01179-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION TO STRIKE 9 v. AND ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVERLENGTH 10 MARCUS TERRY, et al., OPPOSITION BRIEF 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 13 & 14

12 13 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion to strike and administrative motion for leave to file 14 an overlength opposition brief in response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Dkt. Nos. 13 & 14.) 15 After careful consideration of Plaintiff’s briefing, the Court concludes that oral argument is 16 unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L-R 7-1(b), and DENIES Plaintiff’s motions. 17 Plaintiff moves to strike Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that it exceeds the 18 permissible length under this District’s Local Rules. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-2(b). However, 19 Defendants’ motion to dismiss does not violate the Local Rules—while the filed submission is 33 20 pages in total length, the substantive pages of the motion itself falls within the limits that Civil 21 Local Rule 7-2(b) contemplates; indeed, the final page of argument is page number 23. Id. The 22 motion follows the standard convention of separately numbering the table of contents and table of 23 authorities from the substantive text. See Garcia v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc., 2019 WL 24 6050768 at *8 n.8 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2019). The table of contents and table of authorities do not 25 count toward the 25-page limit. See Ramachandran v. City of Los Altos, No. 18-CV-01223-VKD, 26 2021 WL 84488, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2021). 27 For this reason Plaintiff’s motion to strike is DENIED. The Court additionally DENIES 1 pursuant to the parties’ briefing schedule. 2 This Order disposes of Dkt. Nos. 13 & 14. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: April 19, 2021 5 , re 6 ACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ZHENG LIU, Case No. 21-cv-01179-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION TO STRIKE 9 v. AND ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVERLENGTH 10 MARCUS TERRY, et al., OPPOSITION BRIEF 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 13 & 14

12 13 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion to strike and administrative motion for leave to file 14 an overlength opposition brief in response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Dkt. Nos. 13 & 14.) 15 After careful consideration of Plaintiff’s briefing, the Court concludes that oral argument is 16 unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L-R 7-1(b), and DENIES Plaintiff’s motions. 17 Plaintiff moves to strike Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that it exceeds the 18 permissible length under this District’s Local Rules. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-2(b). However, 19 Defendants’ motion to dismiss does not violate the Local Rules—while the filed submission is 33 20 pages in total length, the substantive pages of the motion itself falls within the limits that Civil 21 Local Rule 7-2(b) contemplates; indeed, the final page of argument is page number 23. Id. The 22 motion follows the standard convention of separately numbering the table of contents and table of 23 authorities from the substantive text. See Garcia v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc., 2019 WL 24 6050768 at *8 n.8 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2019). The table of contents and table of authorities do not 25 count toward the 25-page limit. See Ramachandran v. City of Los Altos, No. 18-CV-01223-VKD, 26 2021 WL 84488, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2021). 27 For this reason Plaintiff’s motion to strike is DENIED. The Court additionally DENIES 1 pursuant to the parties’ briefing schedule. 2 This Order disposes of Dkt. Nos. 13 & 14. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: April 19, 2021 5 , re 6 ACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Liu v. Terry, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liu-v-terry-cand-2021.