Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01233/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01233-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IAN MCCRAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITE HERE! LOCAL 19,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01233-BLF 

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Re: ECF 41]

On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff Ian McCray filed his opposition to Defendant’s motion to 

dismiss. Opp’n, ECF 41. Because the opposition violates the Court’s Standing Order re Civil 

Cases and Civ. L.R. 3-4(c)(2) with respect to the use of footnotes, Plaintiff’s opposition is 

STRICKEN.

This Court’s Standing Order re Civil Cases, subsection E.4 provides that footnotes “are to 

be used sparingly and citations to textual matter shall not be contained in footnotes.” Several 

pages of the opposition contain lengthy footnotes—and, on one page, a footnote that is more than

half a page. Opp’n 22. Through this use of footnotes, Plaintiff included 111 lines of singlespaced text—the equivalent of 4 pages had Plaintiff complied with the Civil Local Rules’ 

requirement that text in the body of the brief be double-spaced with no more than 28 lines per 

page. See Civ. L.R. 3-4(c)(2). Had Plaintiff complied with these rules, his brief would have been 

oversized, at 29 pages.

Because Plaintiff’s use of footnotes violates the Court’s Standing Order and the Civil 

Local Rules, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss the first 

amended complaint. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file an opposition that complies with the 

Standing Order and Civil Local Rules; contains few footnotes, if any; and does not exceed 25 

Case 5:16-cv-01233-BLF Document 43 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

pages inclusive of the signature page by no later than October 31, 2016. This order does not affect 

Defendant’s reply, which remains due October 24, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-01233-BLF Document 43 Filed 10/24/16 Page 2 of 2