Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00880/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00880-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kathleen C. Campbell, individually and

as the successor in interest of Ruth C.

Pritchard, Deceased, Capitol Enquiry

Inc.; and Capital Education, Inc.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Judy Fernando-Sholes and Bruce A.

Sholes, individually and as husband and

wife; Bruce A. Sholes, doing business as

Law Offices of Bruce A. Sholes; Oasis at

Wild Horse Ranch, LLC, an Arizona

limited liability company; John C.

Kubasch, individually, and John C.

Kubasch and Jane Doe Kubasch,

husband and wife; and Does 1-20,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-0880-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Bruce A. Sholes, individually and doing business as

the Law Offices of Bruce A. Sholes (collectively, “Sholes”) Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s

Opposition to Defendant Sholes’ Motion to Set Aside or Amend Default Judgment (Doc.

77). 

Sholes seeks to strike Plaintiffs’ Opposition because it is nearly double the

permissible page length for a responsive filing. According to Sholes, Local Rule 7.2(e)

limits a responsive filing to seventeen pages, exclusive of attachments and any required

statement of facts. Sholes argues that while in the summary judgment context, the parties

are required to file a separate statement of facts, no such rule exists for other motions,

Case 2:05-cv-00880-SMM Document 87 Filed 01/21/09 Page 1 of 4
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

- 2 -

including an opposition. At thirty-one total pages, Sholes claims that Plaintiffs’

Opposition well exceeds the allowable length. Sholes also objects to Plaintiffs’

Opposition because its text and footnotes are smaller than 13-point font as required by

Local Rule 7.1(b)(1). If the correct font size were used, Sholes alleges that Plaintiffs’

Opposition would be thirty-seven pages in length, rather than its current thirty-one pages. 

In their Response, Plaintiffs argue that they interpreted Local Rule 7.2(e) as

limiting a responsive filing to seventeen pages of argument, rather than seventeen total

pages, including the statement of facts. Since Plaintiffs believed a statement of facts is

always required to apprise the court of the facts of the case, they understood the Local

Rule as merely a limitation on the length of the argument. As to the font size issue,

Plaintiffs claim that the font size used for the main text was in accordance with Local

Rule 7.1(b)(1), but admit that the footnotes inadvertently were made smaller than the

main text. Finally, Plaintiffs request that they be allowed to refile their Opposition in

excess of seventeen pages. Plaintiffs argue that due to the complicated facts and

procedural history of the case, a lengthy statement of facts is needed to provide the court

with the necessary background to decide Sholes’ Motion to Set Aside or Amend Default

Judgment. 

After considering the parties’ briefing, the Court will grant Sholes’ Motion to

Strike, but it will allow Plaintiffs to refile their Opposition. The Court finds there are

several rules violations with Plaintiffs’ Opposition. 

Page Length

Local Rule 7.2(e) states, “Unless otherwise permitted by the Court, a motion

including its supporting memorandum, and the response including its supporting

memorandum, each shall not exceed seventeen (17) pages, exclusive of attachments and

any required statement of facts.” LRCiv. 7.2(e). This Local Rule limits parties to filing a

response of seventeen pages in total length. This page limitation includes any statement

of facts that the parties may choose to include with their response. The one exception is

the separate statement of facts which the Local Rules require to be submitted with

Case 2:05-cv-00880-SMM Document 87 Filed 01/21/09 Page 2 of 4
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 -

motions for summary judgment. LRCiv. 56(b). Consequently, Plaintiffs’ Opposition, at a

length of thirty-one pages, exceeds the permissible page length. 

Plaintiffs have requested that the Court allow them to file excess pages. In light of

the complicated factual and procedural background of the case, the Court finds that some

extension of the length of Plaintiffs’ Opposition is appropriate. Plaintiffs are advised that

in the future such motions to file excess pages should be filed prior to, or

contemporaneously with, the opposition brief. 

Text Font Size

Local Rule 7.1(b)(1) lays out the rules concerning font size in court filings. It

states in part, “All pleadings, motions, and other original documents filed with the Clerk

shall be in a fixed-pitch type size no smaller than ten (10) pitch (10 letters per inch) or in

a proportional font size no smaller than 13 point, including any footnotes.” LRCiv.

7.1(b)(1). The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Opposition does not comply with the Local

Rules. As evidenced by the Affidavit filed by Plaintiffs, their Opposition is in 12 point

font, not 13 point as required by the Local Rules (Doc. 84). 

Footnote Font Size and Length

 Under the Local Rules, footnotes are to be the same font size as the text, 13 point. 

LRCiv. 7.1(b)(1). Plaintiffs admit that the footnotes were inadvertently made too small,

and the Court finds this to be true. Furthermore, when Plaintiffs refile their Opposition,

the Court advises the parties that no submissions to the Court shall contain footnotes in

excess of five lines. 

Good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Defendant Sholes’ Motion to Strike

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Sholes’ Motion to Set Aside or Amend Default

Judgment (Doc. 77).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED STRIKING Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant

Sholes’ Motion to Set Aside or Amend Default Judgment without prejudice with leave to

refile in accordance with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Case 2:05-cv-00880-SMM Document 87 Filed 01/21/09 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall refile their Opposition by

Friday, February 20, 2009.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request for excess pages is

GRANTED. The Court will allow Plaintiffs to file an Opposition no more than 30

pages. 

DATED this 21st day of January, 2009.

Case 2:05-cv-00880-SMM Document 87 Filed 01/21/09 Page 4 of 4