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.

Ortiz v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 20, 2009

GUADALUPE ORTIZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT'S RESPONSIVE BRIEF AND GRANTING DEFENDANT LEAVE TO FILE A PROPER RESPONSIVE BRIEF (Doc. 16)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), both parties have consented (Docs. 8 & 9) to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction to conduct all proceedings, including entry of judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) provides as follows: Upon motion made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by these rules, upon motion made by a party within 20 days after the service of the pleading upon the party or upon the court's own initiative at any time, the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.

A court may strike a document that does not conform to the formal requirements of the pertinent rules of court. Transamerican Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 143 F.R.D. 189, 191 (N.D. Ill. 1992).

Defendant's response to plaintiff's opening brief, filed February 9, 2009 (Doc. 16), does not contain a separate and complete statement of facts and thus does not comply with paragraph 11(b)(c) and (d) of the Court's standard Scheduling Order issued May 1, 2008 (Doc. 6).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's response to plaintiff's opening brief is STRICKEN (Doc. 16).

2. Defendant is GRANTED to and through March 16, 2009, by which to file a brief that complies with the pertinent court rules and the Court's standard Scheduling Order (Doc. 6).

3. Plaintiff need not reply to the stricken brief (Doc. 16) and, absent further order of the Court, shall be allowed the standard fifteen-day period within which to reply to the responsive brief due filed by defendant by March 16, 2009.

Defendant is INFORMED that a failure to file a proper brief as ordered by the Court will be considered to be a failure to comply with an order of the Court and could result in the imposition of sanctions.

Defendant is also ADVISED that the court case number prefix of "1:" is designated for Fresno, and "2:" is designated for Sacramento, and is therefore DIRECTED to use the correct case number (prefix) of 1:08-cv-00598-SMS on all future filings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090220

© 1992-2009 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.