Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02030/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02030-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE 

COMPANY,

Plaintiff, 

v.

U.S. SMALL BUSINESS 

ADMINISTRATION; PLACER COUNTY 

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; ALLEN 

R. FRUMKIN; FREDERICK W. 

HODGSON; LINDA HODGSON; and 

DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-02030-KJM-AC

ORDER 

AND RELATED COUNTER/CROSS 

CLAIMS 

 The motion to dismiss counterclaim filed by counterdefendants East Bay Investors, 

LLC, Ferrari Investment, LLC, David J. Ferrari and John C. Rogers (“counterdefendants”) is 

currently pending before the court. ECF Nos. 65–67. A hearing is currently scheduled for the 

matter on August 22, 2014. ECF No. 82. Accordingly, the opposition papers of counterclaimants 

Fredrick W. Hodgson and Linda H. Hodgson (“counterclaimants”) were due on or before 

August 8, 2014. L.R. 230(c). 

 On August 8, 2014, counterclaimants filed objections to counterdefendants’ 

memorandum of points and authorities in support of their motion to dismiss, ECF No. 66, arguing 

Case 2:13-cv-02030-KJM-AC Document 106 Filed 08/19/14 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

the motion exceeds the court’s limit of twenty pages. ECF No. 87. On the same day, 

counterclaimants filed an ex parte application for an order extending the page limit for their 

opposition, arguing in conclusory fashion that counterdefendants exceeded the requisite twentypage limit and the motion to dismiss is “extensive.” ECF No. 88. Counterclaimants also filed 

objections to counterdefendants’ request for judicial notice, ECF No. 89, the declaration of 

Fredrick Hodgson in support of counterclaimants’ opposition, ECF No. 90, and objections to the 

declaration of John C. Rogers in support of counterdefendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 91. 

 On August 9, 2014, the day after counterclaimants’ opposition filing deadline, they 

filed their opposition to counterdefendants’ motion to dismiss. ECF No. 92. 

 On August 11, 2014, three days after counterclaimants’ opposition filing deadline, 

they filed a document styled as a “supplement and errata to declaration of Fredrick Hodgson,” 

ECF No. 93, which contains exhibits A–JJ in support of the declaration, See ECF Nos. 93–95. 

 As a preliminary matter, the court addresses counterclaimants’ argument that 

counterdefendants’ motion to dismiss exceeds the court’s page limit. ECF No. 87. The court’s 

page limit applies to briefing, not including a table of contents, table of authorities or the notice to 

parties. Here, counterdefendants’ memorandum brief in support of their motion to dismiss is 

twenty pages and does not exceed the court’s limit. See ECF No. 66 at 6–25. Accordingly, 

counterclaimants’ objection to counterdefendants’ memorandum, ECF No. 87, is STRICKEN. 

 With regard to counterclaimants’ ex parte application for an order extending the 

page limit for their opposition, counterclaimants fail to show why the court should extend the 

twenty-page limit. ECF No. 88. First, counterdefendants did not exceed the court’s page limit. 

Second, counterclaimants’ conclusory argument that the motion to dismiss is “extensive” and will 

therefore require counterclaimants to “address each and every argument made by 

[c]ounterdefendants” is unavailing. Third, counterclaimants fail to specify the number of 

additional pages it requires for their opposition. Fourth, counterclaimants sought an extension of 

the page limit the same day the opposition was due. Finally, the court notes when 

counterclaimants did file an opposition, it did not exceed the court’s page limit. Accordingly, 

/////

Case 2:13-cv-02030-KJM-AC Document 106 Filed 08/19/14 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

notwithstanding the many deficiencies in counterclaimants’ request, their ex parte application for 

an order extending the page limit for their opposition, ECF No. 88, is DENIED as moot. 

 With regard to counterclaimants’ August 11, 2014 supplement and errata to the 

declaration of Fredrick Hodgson in support of their opposition to the motion to dismiss, ECF Nos. 

93–95, while counterclaimants style the document in part as an errata, the Hodgson declaration 

does not refer to or rely on the exhibits counterclaimants now seek to include with their 

opposition. See ECF No. 90. Nor does counterclaimants’ opposition specifically refer to any of 

the exhibits included with the supplement. See ECF No. 92. Indeed, the opposition does not cite 

to the Hodgson declaration. Id. Moreover, to the extent counterclaimants seek to correct the 

original declaration of Fredrick Hodgson through an errata, the supplement and errata does not 

contain a corrected declaration. Thus, the filing is more akin to an attempt to supplement the 

opposition. To the extent counterclaimants seek to supplement the declaration of Fredrick 

Hodgson with exhibits A–JJ, the filing is untimely and is therefore STRICKEN. 

 Finally, the court turns to counterclaimants’ untimely opposition to the motion to 

dismiss. Local Rule 230(c) states: “No party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion 

at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” Given 

counterclaimant’s late filing, they have forfeited the right to be heard at argument. The court, 

having received the other parties’ filings, finds argument unnecessary and so submits the matter 

scheduled for hearing on August 22, 2014. 

 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Counterclaimants’ objection to counterdefendants’ memorandum in support of 

their motion to dismiss, ECF No. 87, is STRICKEN; 

 2. Counterclaimants’ ex parte application for an order extending the page limit for 

their opposition, ECF No. 88, is DENIED as moot; 

 3. Counterclaimants’ supplement and errata to the declaration of Fredrick 

Hodgson in support of their opposition to the motion to dismiss, ECF Nos. 93–95, is STRICKEN 

as untimely; and 

/////

Case 2:13-cv-02030-KJM-AC Document 106 Filed 08/19/14 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

 4. The motion to dismiss calendared for August 22, 2014, in this case is 

submitted. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 14, 2014.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:13-cv-02030-KJM-AC Document 106 Filed 08/19/14 Page 4 of 4