Sneed v. The Procter & Gamble Company

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 STEPHEN SNEED, et al., Case No. 23-cv-05443-JST

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ 9 v. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Re: ECF No. 26 Defendant. 11

12 13 The Court has received Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 14 26. The Court notes that Plaintiffs have moved many of their substantive arguments into 15 footnotes, most likely for the purpose of complying with the Court’s page limits. See, e.g., id. at 16 17, 19, 21, 22, 27, 29, 30, 32. 17 The Court has previously declined to consider arguments contained in footnotes. E.g., 18 Cheever v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., No. 18-CV-06715-JST, 2019 WL 8883942, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 19 Dec. 4, 2019). “Arguments raised only in footnotes, or only on reply, are generally deemed 20 waived” and need not be considered. Estate of Saunders v. Comm’r, 745 F.3d 953, 962 n.8 (9th 21 Cir. 2014); see Sanders v. Sodexo, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00371-JAD-GWF, 2015 WL 4477697, at *5 22 (D. Nev. July 20, 2015) (“Many courts will disregard arguments raised exclusively in footnotes.” 23 (quoting Bryan Garner, The Redbook: A Manual on Legal Style 168 (3d ed. 2013))). 24 By March 12, 2024, Plaintiffs shall either file a statement that they waive any arguments 25 contained in footnotes or file a brief in which those arguments appear in the body of the document. 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 Defendant’s reply is due March 26, 2024. The hearing on the motion is continued to May 2 2, 2024 at 2:00 p.m.

4 Dated: March 8, 2024 5 JON S. TIGA 6 nited States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

© 15 16

= 17

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