Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-04011/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-04011-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 _

REQUEST TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF 25 PAGES IN OPPOSITION TO STATE DEFENDANT’S 2nd

MOTION TO DISMISS 

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

M. VAN SMITH (SBN 32007) 

1696 Mendenhall Drive 

San Jose, California 95130 

Telephone (408) 364-1062 

E-mail: mvsmith@sbcglobal.net 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

MITCHELL J. PLAINTIFF, D.C., M.S., 

L.Ac., 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

CAROL ROMEO, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No.: C02 04011 RMW 

ORDER FOR PERMISSION TO 

SUBMIT BRIEF OVER 25 PAGES IN 

OPPOSITION TO RULE 12(b)(6) 

MOTION TO DISMISS BY 

DEFENDANTS CAROL ROMEO; JAMES 

SHARP; VIVIEN HERSH; LYDIA ZANE; 

JOEL PRIMES; R. LLOYD FREISEN, 

D.C.; MICHAEL MARTELLO, D.C.; 

LLOYD BOLAND, D.C., DEBORAH E. 

PATE, D.C.; JOHN BOVEE, D.C.; 

SHARON UFBERG, D.C.; JEFFREY 

STEINHARDT, D.C.; STEPHEN 

FOREMAN, D.C.; JACALYN 

BEUTTNER, D.C.; CRAIG MISSAKIAN, 

J.D.; JOHN DERONDED, D.C.; M. 

ELIZABETH WARE; ROBERT 

BOURKE; GAYLYN MACHADO; C. 

BRETT SULLIVAN, D.C.; LAWRENCE 

MERCER; PETER BERMAN, D.C.; 

PATRICIA BRICKMAN 

Date: October 14, 2005 

Time: 9:00 a.m. 

Courtroom: 6 — Fourth Floor 

Judge: The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-4(b), Plaintiff requests permission to file brief in excess of 25 

pages. State Defendants submitted a 26 page memorandum that incorporated a previously 

written 25 page memorandum in its entirety, giving Plaintiff a total of 50 pages of memoranda to 

respond to. In addition, State Defendants incorporated by reference a previously submitted 

request for judicial notice that is more than an inch thick. Although several of State Defendants 

arguments are supported by a paucity of authority, Plaintiff’s opposition is supported by an 

Case 5:02-cv-04011-RMW Document 172 Filed 10/05/05 Page 1 of 2
 2 _

REQUEST TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF 25 PAGES IN OPPOSITION TO STATE DEFENDANT’S 2nd

MOTION TO DISMISS 

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

abundance of authority. It takes more space to cite and explain the application of existent 

authority than it does to cite to no authorities. There are new issues in State Defendants’ brief 

that have not been argued before. Finally, the decisions on issues State Defendants raise hinge 

on a full understanding of the facts of the case, which span a decade, and how these several 

specific fact patterns involving various combinations of 25 defendants, provide specific 

exceptions to the immunities State Defendants wish could be broadly mis-applied to them. Just 

reciting the facts so that the lack of immunity is clear with regard to each of 25 defendants takes 

paragraphs. Defendants made no attempt to elucidate these facts in their papers. 

Dated: September 22, 2005 

ORDER 

Upon the application of Plaintiff, and finding good cause therefore, the court grants 

Plaintiff permission to file a brief up to 35 pages in length. The Court does not intend to 

 Dated: 

 ___________________________ 

Ronald M. WHYTE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 M. VAN SMITH 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

/S/ RONALD M. WHYTE

consider defendant's incorporated by reference brief.

9/27/05

(rmw)

Case 5:02-cv-04011-RMW Document 172 Filed 10/05/05 Page 2 of 2