Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01892/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01892-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

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

JEFFREY SNYDER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TAMKO BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC.,

Defendant.

No. 1:15-cv-01892-TLN-KJN

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT’S 

MULTIPLE MOTIONS TO DISMISS

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendant Tamko Building Products, Inc. 

(“Defendant”) filing multiple motions to dismiss in this Court. (See Mots. To Dismiss, ECF Nos. 

42, 44, 46, 48, 50.) It appears to this Court that Defendant has attempted to skirt the Court’s page 

limit restriction by filing a different motion to dismiss for each Plaintiff named in this action in 

spite of the fact that there is but one complaint. The Court is unimpressed by Defendant’s 

gamesmanship and finds that this action is in contravention to this Court’s standing order. 

Moreover, although Defendant’s course of action is not explicitly prohibited by the local rules of 

this district, the Court finds that these actions certainly violate the spirit of the rule. For this 

reason, the Court hereby STRIKES Defendant’s motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 42, 44, 46, 48, 

50). 

Defendant is welcome to refile a single motion to dismiss in compliance with the 

guidelines provided by this Court. Should Defendant require an extension of the page limits set 

Case 1:15-cv-01892-TLN-KJN Document 60 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 2
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

by this Court, Defendant is directed to file a request with this Court prior to filing the motion on 

the docket. Further Defendant is admonished that the Court will only grant such an extension 

upon a showing of good cause. Due to the Court striking Defendant’s pending motions to 

dismiss, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Omnibus Response to Defendant’s Motions to 

Dismiss (ECF No. 57) is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2016

Case 1:15-cv-01892-TLN-KJN Document 60 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 2