UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION
August 13, 2012
ADDISON J. DEMOURA, JESSICA DEMOURA, AND JOHN DOE, A MINOR THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ADDISON J. DEMOURA, PLAINTIFFS,
ANDREW J. FORD, WILLIAM POOLEY, GARY J. GUFFEY, JASON TOSTA, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, COUNTY OF TUOLUMNE, CITY OF OAKDALE, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 40, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE Y. WU, REQUEST FOR COURT TO ALLOW REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN EXCESS OF 10 PAGES, AND ORDER SEE COURT REVISED ORDER Date: August 20, 2012 Time: 8:30AM Ctrm: 4
DECLARATION AND REQUEST
I, STEPHANIE Y. WU, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney at law, employed by the law firm Borton Petrini, LLP. I am licensed to practice before all courts of this State, and the District Court for the Eastern District of California. I am one of the attorneys of record for Defendant City of Oakdale. If called upon as a witness in this matter, I could competently testify to the truth of the matters set forth herein.
2. I am the attorney who is primarily responsible for preparing the City's Motion for Summary Judgment, including the Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities to Plaintiffs' Opposition to the City's Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Adjudication.
3. Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint only names Defendant City as a defendant in one cause of action -- Fourth Cause of Action for Violation of Constitutional Rights by Failing to Adequately train and Supervise Agents. On the face of Plaintiffs' Complaint, this cause of action is based on two grounds: (1) the zoning ordinance banning medical marijuana dispensaries, and (2) the conduct of the City's SWAT Team officers in serving the search warrant at Plaintiffs' residence. However, the City contends that Plaintiffs' Opposition to the City's Motion for Summary Judgment alleges two new state causes of action, along with several other novel theories and facts in support their Fourth Cause of Action, which has, in effect, rendered our Reply Memorandum more similar to an Opposition Memorandum. While the City contends that such newly asserted claims, theories, and facts fall outside the Complaint and, thus, should not be considered by this Court, the City has, nevertheless, in due diligence, prepared arguments in support of their argument that the Court should disregard such claims, theories and facts, and has also prepared brief arguments in Reply to such new claims, theories and facts, should the Court find such matters to fall within the scope of the Fifth Amended Complaint.
4. While I am making efforts to reduce the length of our Reply brief, I do not believe I will be able to address all of Plaintiffs' arguments set forth in their Opposition in 10 pages or less. I did not fully appreciate the difficulty I would experience in conforming to the 10 page requirement until I joined all of my arguments into one brief, finding that such document far exceeded the 10 page requirement, and subsequently had great difficulty reducing length of the brief, without compromising our client's ability to defend against all of the claims raised in Plaintiffs' Opposition.
5. Based on the foregoing, I hereby request permission to file a Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in up to and including 20 pages, as permitted in Opposition briefs.
6. I agree to use my best efforts to keep the Reply brief as concise as I am able, while ensuring I protect the City's best interest and defend the City to the best of my ability.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to the bet of my information and belief, and that this was executed in Sacramento County, California, on August 13, 2012 in Modesto, California.
/s/ Stephanie Y. Wu__________
Stephanie Y. Wu, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant, CITY OF OAKDALE
This Court treats briefs in excess of page limits as a necessity, not a luxury to be taken lightly. This Court reluctantly PERMITS the City to file a reply summary judgment brief not to exceed 20 pages on the condition that such brief is well-organized, clear and succinct and avoids unnecessary duplication and otherwise complies with this Court's Local Rules. All other briefing shall conform to the Standing Order page limitations of this Court, unless this Court orders otherwise.
In addition, this Court ORDERS the parties to provide courtesy copies of their papers to chambers.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.