Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03429/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03429-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Documents 24 and 25 are both entitled "Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary

Judgment and Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment[,]"

and are virtually identical, except that document 25 contains the original

signature of plaintiff Oshilaja, whereas document 24 appears to be a copy. Also,

the signature line for plaintiff Indermaur is left blank on document 25, but on

document 24, that line appears to have been signed by plaintiff Oshilaja. 

In any event, even though they seem to be identical in substance, for

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Adeshina O. Oshilaja, )

Rebecca S. Indermaur, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. CIV05-3429-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Ms. Yvonne Watterson; Gateway )

Community High School; )

Gateway Community College; )

Maricopa County Community )

College District, )

)

Defendants. ) )

Currently pending before the court is defendants' "Motion to

Strike and Motion for Expedited Consideration" (doc. 30). 

Defendants are seeking to strike "Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary

Judgment and Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for

Summary Judgment"1 on four separate grounds. First, because the

Case 2:05-cv-03429-RCB Document 31 Filed 04/11/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

docketing purposes the Clerk of the Court has deemed number 24 to be plaintiffs'

motion for summary judgment and number 25 to be plaintiffs' opposition to

defendants' motion for summary judgment. Although defendants did not distinguish

between the two, presumably they are seeking to strike both.

- 2 -

court's Scheduling Order required "all dispositive motions" to be

filed "by February 23, 2007[,]" (doc. 11 at 3), and given that

plaintiffs did not file their motion until March 26, 2007,

defendants are moving to strike that motion as untimely. 

Second, defendants are moving to strike because plaintiffs'

motion and opposition violate Local Rule 7.2(e) in that they are 30

pages in length, whereas that Rule sets forth a 17 page limit for

supporting and response memoranda. Third, defendants correctly

point out that plaintiffs' memoranda are not in conformity with

Local Rule 7.1(b)(1) because for the most part they are singlespaced, rather than double-spaced as that Rule requires. Fourth,

defendants are moving to strike because plaintiffs' summary

judgment motion "comingle[s]" [sic] those arguments with

plaintiffs' opposition arguments. See Doc. 30 at 2. Defendants

asserts that this "commingl[ing]" leaves them "to guess what

portion of plaintiffs' motion is intended to respond to defendants'

summary judgment motion." Id. (footnote omitted). Defendants are

seeking expedited consideration of this motion because they

calculate the filing date for their reply as April 13, 2007. 

As to defendants' motion to strike, the court is fully aware

that plaintiffs' motion and opposition are not in conformity with

the Local Rules for the reasons identified by defendants. As

previously noted, it appears that only one pro se plaintiff signed

that motion, and not both as Fed. R. 11(a) requires. The court

will overlook these deficiencies, however, given plaintiffs' pro se

Case 2:05-cv-03429-RCB Document 31 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

status. Therefore the court DENIES defendants' Motion to Strike

(doc. 30) "Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs'

Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment" (docs. 24

and 25). The court stresses, however, that hereinafter plaintiffs

shall abide by all applicable rule as if they were represented by

counsel.

By the same token, given the time constraints under which

defendants are operating, the court GRANTS defendants' motion for

expedited consideration. Furthermore, because plaintiffs' motion

and opposition are not in conformity with the applicable rules,

defendants are entitled to substantially more time to respond. 

Accordingly, the court hereby GRANTS defendants thirty (30) days

from the date of this order in which to file and serve their reply

to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendants' motion to strike

(doc. 30) is DENIED;

It is further ORDERED that defendants's motion for expedited

consideration (doc. 30) is GRANTED; and

FINALLY, it is ORDERED that defendants shall have thirty (30)

days from the date of this Order in which to file and serve their

reply to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. 

IT IS ORDERED.

DATED this 11th day of April, 2007.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:05-cv-03429-RCB Document 31 Filed 04/11/07 Page 3 of 3