Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00288/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00288-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:3601 Fair Housing Act

---

– 1 – 16cv288 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NATSUE ELLIOTT, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 16-cv-00288-BAS-AGS

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

MOTION TO STRIKE

v. [ECF No. 114]

QC CIRCA 37, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Defendants Versa CIC, LP and ConAm 

Management Corporation’s (“Defendants”) ex parte motion for (1) an order either 

striking Plaintiffs’ opposition (the “Opposition”) to Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment or an order striking additional pages in the Opposition beyond the 25 pages 

permitted by the Local Rules, and (2) an order to strike Plaintiffs’ untimely pleadings 

filed in support of the Opposition. In the alternative, Defendants seek an extension 

of time to file a response to the Opposition and leave of court to file a 25-page reply. 

For the reasons below, the Court grants Defendants’ request to strike the 

Opposition. The Court also strikes the supporting papers. Plaintiffs, however, will 

have the opportunity to submit a revised Opposition and their supporting papers. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims with 

Case 3:16-cv-00288-BAS-AGS Document 116 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 16cv288

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

the Court on October 9, 2017. (ECF No. 92.) Plaintiffs’ Opposition and supporting 

papers were due on October 30, 2017. Plaintiffs filed a 66-page Opposition on 

October 30, 2017, and a notice of lodgment of exhibits thereto, but these submissions 

lacked certificates of service. (ECF Nos. 103, 104.) Plaintiffs also submitted three

declarations in support of the Opposition, with the declarations of Plaintiff Natsue 

Elliott and Steve Smelser lacking their signatures. (ECF Nos. 105, 105-2.) Plaintiffs 

subsequently requested to withdraw these declarations because they lacked 

signatures and indicated they would refile them. (ECF No. 109.) On October 31 and 

November 2, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the missing certificates of service for the 

Opposition and lodgment of exhibits. (ECF Nos. 107, 108.) Plaintiffs also 

resubmitted all supporting declarations on November 2, 2017 with signatures. (ECF 

Nos. 110−113.) 

Defendants subsequently informed Plaintiffs’ counsel of their intent to file an 

ex parte motion seeking relief from the Court regarding Plaintiffs’ excessive 

Opposition and untimely filings. (ECF No. 114-1, Decl. of Rita R. Kanno ¶3.) The 

Court now considers Defendants’ ex parte request.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiffs’ Excessive Opposition is Stricken

Civil Local Rule 7.1(h) provides that “[b]riefs or memoranda in support or in 

opposition to all motions noticed for the same motion day must not exceed a total of 

twenty-five (25) pages in length, per party, for all such motions without leave of 

[Court].” (emphasis added). Courts generally look with disfavor on motions to 

exceed page limits for briefs or memoranda, and grants to exceed such limits are the 

exception. See, e.g., Santos v. Baca, No. 2:11-cv-01252-KJD-NJK, 2017 WL 

773874, at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 28, 2017). Excessive briefs are ill-advised considering 

the strains on judicial dockets and potential prejudice to the opposing party. See 

Murray v. City of Bonners Ferry, No. 2:15-cv-00081-REB, 2016 WL 3198232, at *2 

n.3 (D. Idaho June 8, 2016). Moreover, excessive briefs “may actually hurt a party’s 

Case 3:16-cv-00288-BAS-AGS Document 116 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 16cv288

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

case, making it ‘far more likely that meritorious arguments will be lost amid the mass 

of detail.’” Elec. Frontier Found. v. C.I.A., No. C 09-03351 SBA, 2012 WL 112359, 

at *1 (N.D. Cal. April 3, 2012) (quoting Fleming v. Cnty. of Kane, State of Ill., 855 

F.2d 496, 497 (7th Cir. 1988)). In contrast, shorter briefs are typically more helpful 

to the Court “because the discipline of compression forces the parties to explain 

clearly and succinctly what has happened, the precise legal issue, and just why they 

believe the law supports them.” Id. (quoting In re M.S.V., Inc., 892 F.2d 5, 6 (1st 

Cir. 1989)). 

Here, Plaintiffs submitted a 66-page Opposition without first seeking leave 

from the Court. The submission thus violates the plain language of Civil Local Rule 

7.1(h). The overly excessive length of the submission is also prejudicial to 

Defendants given that the applicable Local Rule generally limits the length of a reply 

brief to 10 pages. Civ. L.R. 7.1(h). A court may strike a brief that violates the length 

requirement set by the Local Rules, or strike the offending portion exceeding the 

length requirement. See, e.g., Elec. Frontier Found., 2012 WL 112359, at *1; King 

Cnty. v. Rasmussen, 143 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 1227 (W.D. Wash. 2001). The Court will 

strike Plaintiffs’ Opposition in its entirety. However, the Court will afford Plaintiffs 

the opportunity to file a brief that conforms to the page limit set by Local Rule 7.1(h). 

Plaintiffs must endeavor to keep their Opposition concise and to the point. Because 

the Court is striking the Opposition, the supporting papers are also stricken. Plaintiffs 

may re-submit the supporting papers with their revised Opposition. 

B. Violations of Other Local Rules

The Court further advises Plaintiffs that their now stricken Opposition failed 

to comply with various local rules. First, the Opposition failed to comply with the 

Local Rule regarding the contents of an opposition. The Opposition lacked a “brief 

and complete statement of all reasons in opposition to the position taken by the 

movant.” Civ. L.R. 7.1(f)(3)(b). The value of this rule is that it provides a distilled 

view to the Court of a party’s opposition. Second, the Opposition and lodgment of 

Case 3:16-cv-00288-BAS-AGS Document 116 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 16cv288

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

exhibits lacked certificates of service when they were filed (ECF Nos. 103, 104), in 

contravention of the rule that a document filed electronically must contain a 

certificate of service. See Civ. L.R. 5.4(c). Instead, Plaintiffs filed certificates 

separately on the docket. (ECF Nos. 107, 108.) Third, the Opposition lacked 

complete copies of all documentary evidence upon which the Plaintiffs relied at the 

time it was filed. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(e)(2); 7.1(f)(3)(b). Although the Opposition 

referenced the declarations of Plaintiff Natsue Elliott and Steve Smelser, these 

declarations were not properly filed until November 2, 2017. (ECF Nos. 110, 112.) 

Plaintiffs are advised that a failure to file papers in the manner required by Civil 

Local Rule 7.1(e)(2) may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other 

request for ruling by the Court. Civ. L.R. 7.1(f)(3)(c). 

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 

1. Plaintiffs’ Opposition and supporting papers ARE STRICKEN. (ECF Nos. 

103, 104, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112.)

2. Plaintiffs may re-submit a revised Opposition, not exceeding 25 pages, and 

their supporting papers no later than November 10, 2017. 

3. Defendants may file a reply to the Opposition, not exceeding 10 pages, and 

any supporting papers, no later than November 17, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 3, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00288-BAS-AGS Document 116 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4