Taylor v. Kelety

S.D. California

Taylor v. Kelety

DecidedMarch 10, 2021

Docket3:20-cv-01987

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Taylor v. Kelety, (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LULA MAE TAYLOR, Case No.: 20-cv-1987-DMS-AGS

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 14 JULIA CRAIG KELETY, et al., EXCESS PAGES 15 Defendants. 16 17 On March 5, 2021, Plaintiff Lula Mae Taylor, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for 18 reconsideration of the Court’s February 17, 2021 denial of her request for leave to file 19 excess pages in opposition to Defendants California Judicial Council, Julia Craig Kelety, 20 and Superior Court of California’s (“Judicial Defendants”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 21 27.) 22 “Given [a] district court’s inherent power to control [its] docket[], whether to grant 23 leave to exceed the page limits set forth in the Civil Local Rules appears to be at the full 24 discretion of the Court.” Traylor Bros. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., No. 08-CV-1019- 25 L WVG, 2012 WL 1019966, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2012) (citing United States v. W.R. 26 Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). Although Plaintiff has not 27 demonstrated good cause, given that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court in its 28 discretion grants Plaintiff leave to file an opposition of fifty (50) pages. 1 Plaintiff is ordered to file her opposition to the Judicial Defendants’ motion within 2 || fourteen (14) days of this Order. The Judicial Defendants may file a reply within fourteen 3 || (14) days of the filing of Plaintiff's response in opposition. Plaintiff is once again warned 4 ||that failure to comply with the Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or an 5 || order of the Court may be grounds for dismissal or other sanctions. See Civ. L.R. 83.1. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 || Dated: March 10, 2021 em Dh 9 an Yn. 10 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 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 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LULA MAE TAYLOR, Case No.: 20-cv-1987-DMS-AGS

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 14 JULIA CRAIG KELETY, et al., EXCESS PAGES 15 Defendants. 16 17 On March 5, 2021, Plaintiff Lula Mae Taylor, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for 18 reconsideration of the Court’s February 17, 2021 denial of her request for leave to file 19 excess pages in opposition to Defendants California Judicial Council, Julia Craig Kelety, 20 and Superior Court of California’s (“Judicial Defendants”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 21 27.) 22 “Given [a] district court’s inherent power to control [its] docket[], whether to grant 23 leave to exceed the page limits set forth in the Civil Local Rules appears to be at the full 24 discretion of the Court.” Traylor Bros. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., No. 08-CV-1019- 25 L WVG, 2012 WL 1019966, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2012) (citing United States v. W.R. 26 Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). Although Plaintiff has not 27 demonstrated good cause, given that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court in its 28 discretion grants Plaintiff leave to file an opposition of fifty (50) pages. 1 Plaintiff is ordered to file her opposition to the Judicial Defendants’ motion within 2 || fourteen (14) days of this Order. The Judicial Defendants may file a reply within fourteen 3 || (14) days of the filing of Plaintiff's response in opposition. Plaintiff is once again warned 4 ||that failure to comply with the Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or an 5 || order of the Court may be grounds for dismissal or other sanctions. See Civ. L.R. 83.1. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 || Dated: March 10, 2021 em Dh 9 an Yn. 10 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Taylor v. Kelety, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-kelety-casd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack