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.

Robert Cruz v. Starbucks Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 15, 2013

ROBERT CRUZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joseph C. Spero United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO STRIKE Re: Docket No. 86

Plaintiff has filed a motion to strike ("the Motion"), asking the Court to strike factual allegations contained in Defendants' opposition brief filed in response to Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees. The Motion is noticed to be heard on May 31, 2013 and therefore does not comply with the notice requirement under Civil Local Rule 7-2(a) which provides that a hearing may be noticed no less than 35 days from the date a motion is filed. In addition, Civil Local Rule 7-3(c) provides that "[a]ny evidentiary and procedural objections to the opposition must be contained within the reply brief or memorandum." Because the Motion was improperly noticed and does not comply with the Civil Local Rules, the Court strikes the Motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 1-4 ("Failure by counsel or a party to comply with any duly promulgated local rule or any Federal Rule may be a ground for imposition of any authorized sanction"); see also American Color Graphics, Inc. v. Travelers Property Cas. Co. of America, 2006 WL 862958, at *1 (N.D.Cal., March 31, 2006) ("Parties are reminded that a failure to comply with any local or Federal Rule may be a ground for imposition of an authorized sanction") (citing Smith v. Frank, 923 F.2d 139, 142 (9th Cir.1991) ("For violations of the local rules, sanctions may be imposed including, in 27 appropriate cases, striking the offending pleading.")). Accordingly, the Court will consider only 28 the objections that were included in Plaintiff's reply brief. No further briefing shall be permitted on the attorney fees motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130515

© 1992-2013 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.