Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

W.D. Texas

Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedNovember 21, 2022

Docket3:22-cv-00135

StatusUnknown

This text of Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (W.D. Tex. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

LILIA MARTINEZ, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § EP-22-CV-00135-KC-ATB § COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL § SECURITY, §

§ Defendant. § §

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF

On this day, the Court considers “Plaintiff’s Brief,” filed on November 19, 2022, in the above-captioned matter. (ECF No. 16). Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(c)(2), the page limit for Plaintiff’s Brief is twenty pages “exclusive of the caption, the signature block, any certificate, and any accompanying documents.” W.D. Tex. Civ. R. 7(c)(2). Plaintiff’s Brief is approximately thirty-three pages, exclusive of the caption, table of contents, signature block, certificates, and accompanying documents. See (ECF No. 16). Plaintiff did not request the Court’s permission to exceed the page limit. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Brief is improperly filed. Moreover, the Court finds that leave to exceed the page limit in this case is unwarranted. Federal courts have “inherent power ‘to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406, 1417 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962)). One such way to manage affairs is to establish page limits. See Barnes v. Tumlinson, 597 F. App’x 798, 799 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). In the instant case, the Court finds no indication of novel issues requiring extensive briefing beyond the Court’s page limits. See Gulf Petro Trading Co. v. Nigerian Nat’l Petroleum Corp., 233 F.R.D. 492, 493 (E.D. Tex. 2005).! Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Brief (ECF No. 16) be STRICKEN from the record. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff file a brief that complies with the Local Rule CV-7 page limits and Local Rule CV-10 formatting requirements on or before November 28, 2022. Any requests to exceed the page limit will be denied. SIGNED and ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2022.

ANNE T. BERTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

' The Court also notes that attorneys at the Konoski & Partners, PC law firm have repeatedly exceeded the Local Rule CV-7 page limits. See, e.g., No. 1:21-cv-00731-RP-SH (ECF No. 13); No. 3:21-cv-00082-LS (ECF No. 12); No. 3:22-cv-00073-FM-LS (ECF No. 15); No. 3:22-cv-00101-KC-ATB (ECF No. 13); No. 3:22-cv-00120-FM-RFC (ECF No. 16); and No. 3:22-cv-00222-FM-RFC (ECF No. 18).

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

LILIA MARTINEZ, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § EP-22-CV-00135-KC-ATB § COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL § SECURITY, §

§ Defendant. § §

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF

On this day, the Court considers “Plaintiff’s Brief,” filed on November 19, 2022, in the above-captioned matter. (ECF No. 16). Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(c)(2), the page limit for Plaintiff’s Brief is twenty pages “exclusive of the caption, the signature block, any certificate, and any accompanying documents.” W.D. Tex. Civ. R. 7(c)(2). Plaintiff’s Brief is approximately thirty-three pages, exclusive of the caption, table of contents, signature block, certificates, and accompanying documents. See (ECF No. 16). Plaintiff did not request the Court’s permission to exceed the page limit. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Brief is improperly filed. Moreover, the Court finds that leave to exceed the page limit in this case is unwarranted. Federal courts have “inherent power ‘to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406, 1417 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962)). One such way to manage affairs is to establish page limits. See Barnes v. Tumlinson, 597 F. App’x 798, 799 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). In the instant case, the Court finds no indication of novel issues requiring extensive briefing beyond the Court’s page limits. See Gulf Petro Trading Co. v. Nigerian Nat’l Petroleum Corp., 233 F.R.D. 492, 493 (E.D. Tex. 2005).! Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Brief (ECF No. 16) be STRICKEN from the record. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff file a brief that complies with the Local Rule CV-7 page limits and Local Rule CV-10 formatting requirements on or before November 28, 2022. Any requests to exceed the page limit will be denied. SIGNED and ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2022.

ANNE T. BERTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

' The Court also notes that attorneys at the Konoski & Partners, PC law firm have repeatedly exceeded the Local Rule CV-7 page limits. See, e.g., No. 1:21-cv-00731-RP-SH (ECF No. 13); No. 3:21-cv-00082-LS (ECF No. 12); No. 3:22-cv-00073-FM-LS (ECF No. 15); No. 3:22-cv-00101-KC-ATB (ECF No. 13); No. 3:22-cv-00120-FM-RFC (ECF No. 16); and No. 3:22-cv-00222-FM-RFC (ECF No. 18).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-txwd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack