Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WAKEFIELD v. CITY OF ESCONDIDO

United States District Court, S.D. California


September 21, 2005.

BROCK WAKEFIELD, Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF ESCONDIDO; GREG KOGLER; AL PARKER; and DOES 1-20, Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARILYN HUFF, Chief Judge

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE PAGE LIMITATION ON DEFENDANT AL PARKER'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW; AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A NEW TRIAL, AND FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT ON THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM, UNDER RULE 50(b)
1. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO GRANT AN EXTENTION OF PAGE LIMITATION
The Southern District Court's Civil Local Rules, Rule 7.1(h) provides that reply briefs in support of all motions shall not exceed ten (10) pages in length without leave of the judge who will hear the motion. Here, Defendant Al Parker requests that the Court grant him a four page extension of the page limitation set forth in Rule 7.1(h) for purposes of his reply brief, filed concurrently herewith. Good cause exists for granting this ex parte application in that, for purposes of efficiency, Defendant combined three separate motions in a single post-trial motion, including a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a motion for a new trial, and a motion for a directed verdict on the punitive damages claim. Defendant's moving papers on the combined motion totaled 15 pages, well below the 25 page limit. Defendant's reply to Plaintiff's opposition addresses all three motions and exceeds the reply paper limit by only four pages. Combined with the moving papers, Defendant's instant motion totals 29 pages, well below the combined 35 page limit. Thus, good cause exists to permit a four page extension of the page limitation set forth in Rule 7.1(h) for purposes of Defendant's reply brief.

  2. CONCLUSION

  Based upon the foregoing, good cause exists to allow for a four page extension to the page limitation set forth in Rule 7.1(h) for purposes of Defendant's reply brief. DECLARATION OF SUSAN D. RYAN IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE PAGE LIMITATION ON DEFENDANT AL PARKER'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW; AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A NEW TRIAL, AND FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT ON THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM, UNDER RULE 50(b)

  1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all the courts of the State of California and am a Deputy City Attorney with the Office of the City Attorney, attorneys herein for Defendant Al Parker.

  2. I have personal knowledge of all the matters stated herein and if called as a witness could competently testify thereto, except as to those matters stated upon information and belief and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. 3. Filed concurrently herewith is Defendant Al Parker's Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Reply To Plaintiff's Opposition To Defendant's Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law; And In The Alternative For A New Trial, And For A Directed Verdict On The Punitive Damages Claim, Under Rule 50(B). The reply brief in support of the motion is 14 pages long. It exceeds the page limitation set forth in Local Rule 7.1(h) by four pages.

  4. By this application, Defendant Al Parker seeks a four page extension of the page limitation. Good cause exists for an order granting the extension because of the following reasons:

  5. For purposes of efficiency, Defendant combined three separate motions in a single post-trial motion, including a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a motion for a new trial, and a motion for a directed verdict on the punitive damages claim. Defendant's moving papers on the combined motion totaled 15 pages, well below the 25 page limit. Defendant's reply to Plaintiff's opposition addresses all three motions and exceeds the reply paper limit by only four pages. Combined with the moving papers, Defendant's instant motion totals 29 pages, well below the combined 35 page limit. Thus, good cause exists to permit a four page extension of the page limitation set forth in Rule 7.1(h) for purposes of Defendant's reply brief.

  I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

20050921

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.