Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04693/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04693-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AIMEE SHEMANO-KRUPP,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-04693 JSW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE

MULTIPLE MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Having received four motions for summary judgment set to be heard on May 26, 2006 at

9:00 a.m., the Court HEREBY ISSUES this order to show cause why the Court should deviate

from its Standing Order ¶ 8 which provides that with respect to motions for summary judgment,

“[a]ll issues shall be contained within one motion, may not exceed twenty-five pages in length,

and shall conform with Civil Local Rule 7-2.” After only a brief preliminary review of the four

recently-filed motions, both parties appear to move for summary judgment on the same issues, 

and each party submits two motions each to raise their concerns. There appears to be

significant overlap and redundancy in the four motions. In order to preserve judicial resources,

the Court requires by its Standing Orders that each party file only one motion for summary

judgment per case, in the absence of a showing of good cause. Further, it is the custom of this

Court to require the parties to meet and confer in order to establish that cross-motions for

summary judgment do not significantly overlap in substance, and to brief in opposition to a

motion by the party with the burden of proof on any given issue, instead of resolving fullybriefed cross-motions on the identical issue.

Case 3:05-cv-04693-JSW Document 42 Filed 04/24/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Therefore, by no later than April 28, 2006, the parties shall file a written response to this

Order showing cause (1) why the Court should not strike the current motions for failure to

comply with this Court’s standing order permitting only one motion for summary judgment per

party; (2) whether the parties’ current briefing best preserves the resources of this Court; and (3)

a proposal, including a schedule for briefing, which addresses the Court’s concerns.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04693-JSW Document 42 Filed 04/24/06 Page 2 of 2