San Pedro-Salcedo v. The Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc.

N.D. California

San Pedro-Salcedo v. The Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc.

DecidedSeptember 12, 2019

Docket5:17-cv-03504

StatusUnknown

This text of San Pedro-Salcedo v. The Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc. (San Pedro-Salcedo v. The Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc.) 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

San Pedro-Salcedo v. The Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 SAN JOSE DIVISION 9 MELANIE G. SAN PEDRO-SALCEDO, 10 Case No. 5:17-cv-03504-EJD Plaintiff, 11 ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 12 INCREASE PAGE LIMIT THE HAAGEN-DAZS SHOPPE 13 COMPANY, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 108 14 Defendant.

15 Defendant has filed an administrative motion seeking leave to file a reply brief in support 16 of its summary judgment motion that exceeds the 15-page limit set by Civil Local Rule 7-2(c). 17 Defendant contends that good cause exists because (a) Plaintiff’s opposition brief (Dkt. No. 100) 18 contains numerous, substantive footnotes that do not comply with the court’s standing order for 19 civil cases, and (b) the opposition improperly relies on previously undisclosed documents. The 20 court’s standing order provides that “[f]ootnotes shall be in no less than 12-point type and shall be 21 double-spaced.” Standing Order § IV.A.4. Plaintiff plainly did not comply with the standing order, and in doing so, Plaintiff also violated the 25-page limit set by Civil Local Rule 7-2(a). The 22 court will not consider any of the footnotes in plaintiff’s opposition. Cho v. UCBH Holdings Inc., 23 2011 WL 3809903, at *18 (N.D. Cal. 2011). As to Defendants’ second argument, Civil Local 24 Rule 7-2(c) provides, “Any evidentiary . . . objections to the opposition must be contained within 25 the reply brief or memorandum.” Accordingly, neither argument justifies allowing Defendant to 26 file a reply brief that exceeds the page limit set by the Civil Local Rules. 27 ] Defendant’s administrative motion is denied, and the court will not consider any footnotes 2 || that fail to comply with the court’s standing order. 3 IT ISSO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: September 12, 2019 5 EDWARD J. DAVILA 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 1] %L

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || Case No.: 5:17-cv-03504-EJD ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO INCREASE PAGE LIMIT

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 SAN JOSE DIVISION 9 MELANIE G. SAN PEDRO-SALCEDO, 10 Case No. 5:17-cv-03504-EJD Plaintiff, 11 ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 12 INCREASE PAGE LIMIT THE HAAGEN-DAZS SHOPPE 13 COMPANY, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 108 14 Defendant.

15 Defendant has filed an administrative motion seeking leave to file a reply brief in support 16 of its summary judgment motion that exceeds the 15-page limit set by Civil Local Rule 7-2(c). 17 Defendant contends that good cause exists because (a) Plaintiff’s opposition brief (Dkt. No. 100) 18 contains numerous, substantive footnotes that do not comply with the court’s standing order for 19 civil cases, and (b) the opposition improperly relies on previously undisclosed documents. The 20 court’s standing order provides that “[f]ootnotes shall be in no less than 12-point type and shall be 21 double-spaced.” Standing Order § IV.A.4. Plaintiff plainly did not comply with the standing order, and in doing so, Plaintiff also violated the 25-page limit set by Civil Local Rule 7-2(a). The 22 court will not consider any of the footnotes in plaintiff’s opposition. Cho v. UCBH Holdings Inc., 23 2011 WL 3809903, at *18 (N.D. Cal. 2011). As to Defendants’ second argument, Civil Local 24 Rule 7-2(c) provides, “Any evidentiary . . . objections to the opposition must be contained within 25 the reply brief or memorandum.” Accordingly, neither argument justifies allowing Defendant to 26 file a reply brief that exceeds the page limit set by the Civil Local Rules. 27 ] Defendant’s administrative motion is denied, and the court will not consider any footnotes 2 || that fail to comply with the court’s standing order. 3 IT ISSO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: September 12, 2019 5 EDWARD J. DAVILA 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 1] %L

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || Case No.: 5:17-cv-03504-EJD ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO INCREASE PAGE LIMIT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

San Pedro-Salcedo v. The Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/san-pedro-salcedo-v-the-haagen-dazs-shoppe-company-inc-cand-2019.