Mona v. Sifen

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 5 Michael J. Mona, Jr., Case No. 2:22-cv-00821-CDS-VCF

6 Plaintiff Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave

to File Excess Pages, Granting Plaintiff’s 7 v. Motion to Seal Exhibits, and Denying

Stipulation to Extend Time as Moot 8 Michael Sifen,

[ECF Nos. 25, 28, 29] 9 Defendant

10 11 Plaintiff Michael J. Mona, Jr. moves for leave to file excess pages (ECF No. 25) in 12 response to defendant Michael Sifen’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24). He also seeks leave to file 13 exhibits 3 and 15 of his response under seal. ECF No. 28. The parties have also stipulated to 14 extend the time in which Sifen may reply to Mona’s response. ECF No. 29. Because I find that 15 Mona fails to demonstrate good cause to file excess pages, I deny his motion. I also deny as moot 16 the stipulation regarding the defendant’s reply brief to Mona’s response. But I permit Mona to 17 refile his response, by Monday, July 19, 2023, and find good cause for exhibits 3 and 15 to be filed 18 under seal. 19 I. Discussion 20 “The court looks with disfavor on motions to exceed page limits, so permission to do so 21 will not be routinely granted. A motion to file a brief that exceeds [] page limits will be granted 22 only upon a showing of good cause” and “must be filed before the motion or brief is due[.]” LR 7- 23 3(c). I first note that Mona sought leave to file excess pages on June 7, 2023, the day before his 24 response was due, and he complied with other the procedural requirements of LR 7-3. But I do 25 not find good cause for Mona to file excess pages. Filing an overlength brief, which contains 26 assertions of fact copied directly from the operative complaint and arguments not tailored to the 1 defendant’s motion to dismiss, imposes a substantial burden on the court. United States v. Ruiz- 2 Rivera, 2020 WL 4260949, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 23, 2020). Put simply, there is no reason for the 3 statement of facts in Mona’s response to be 13 pages long, as almost all of that information is 4 contained in Mona’s complaint. Compare Compl., ECF No. 23 at 2–17 (describing the Emerald 5 Suites project, additional investments in real estate and Capriotti’s Sandwich Shop, CBD 6 investments, MJNA investment, HEMP investment, Sifen’s profits, Sifen’s failure to disclose, and 7 Sifen’s refusal to pay) with Resp., ECF No. 26 at 11–24 (describing the Emerald Suites project, 8 additional investments in real estate and Capriotti’s Sandwich Shop, CBD investments, MJNA 9 investment, HEMP investment, Sifen’s profits, Sifen’s failure to disclose, and Sifen’s refusal to 10 pay). 11 Furthermore, much of Mona’s response seems to be directed toward establishing 12 jurisdiction for investments that predate the events in the complaint. Mona alleges that Sifen 13 breached a fiduciary duty by taking profits from “the Partnership’s shares in MJNA, HEMP[,] 14 and BDPT.” ECF No. [23] at ¶ 132. He alleges Sifen breached an oral contract regarding the 15 partnership. Id. at ¶ 138. He further alleges Sifen breached the covenant of good faith and fair 16 dealing and committed fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the partnership and oral 17 contract. Id. at ¶¶ 145, 148, 153. But none of his claims are based on Sifen’s alleged investments 18 into the Emerald Suites project, real estate, or Capriotti’s Sandwich Shop. A plaintiff relying on 19 specific jurisdiction “must establish that jurisdiction is proper for ‘each claim asserted against a 20 defendant.’” Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Action Embroidery Corp. v. 21 Atl. Embroidery, Inc., 368 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2004)). Each claim “must be one which arises 22 out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities.” Id. (quoting Schwarzenegger v. Fred 23 Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004)) (emphasis added). Essentially, Mona’s 24 argument—in part—improperly focuses on investments predating the events for which he 25 brings claims. So the extensive discussion regarding those investments in Mona’s response to 26 the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 26 at 28–31) is irrelevant to the jurisdictional analysis. Although 1 I respect the plaintiff’s right to be heard, I am confident that he can succinctly state his positions 2 within the limitations set forth in the Local Rules. And because I deny Mona’s motion for leave 3 to file excess pages and instruct him to refile his response, I deny as moot the parties’ stipulation 4 to extend time to file a reply. 5 Finally, I grant Mona’s motion for leave to file exhibits 3 and 15 of his response under seal 6 because I find that confidential business information represents a “good cause.” Ctr. for Auto Safety 7 v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). Mona represents that the exhibits 8 include information regarding pricing and business operations of non-parties, and that release of 9 that information could potentially harm those non-parties. ECF No. 28 at 4. 10 I. Conclusion 11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file excess pages 12 [ECF No. 25] is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to STRIKE plaintiff’s responses 13 (ECF Nos. 26, 27) from the docket. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff is to refile his response to the defendant’s 15 motion to dismiss on or before Monday, June 19, 2023. The response must fit within 34 pages 16 (not including tables of contents and authorities or the service page). If the defendant chooses to 17 reply, that reply will be due on or before Monday, June 26, 2023. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file two exhibits 19 under seal [ECF No. 28] is GRANTED. Exhibits 3 and 15 to the plaintiff’s response may be filed 20 under seal. Once filed, the Clerk of Court is instructed to maintain the seal on exhibits 3 and 15. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation to extend time [ECF No. 29] is 22 DENIED as moot. 23 DATED: June 9, 2023 24 _________________________________ Cristina D. Silva 25 United States District Judge 26