Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00731/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00731-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elizabeth Beltran
Defendant
Frederick Beyerlein
Defendant
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Defendant
Estate of Ariel Torres
Plaintiff
Connie Gipson
Defendant
Kevin Hixon
Defendant
Jeffrey Macomber
Defendant
Monica Narvaiz
Defendant
Ulises Ojeda
Defendant
Diane Toche
Defendant
Bianca Truong
Defendant

Document Text:

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

ESTATE OF ARIEL TORRES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.

Defendants.

1:24-cv-00731-KES-SAB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM PAGE LIMITS

(ECF No. 35, 36) 

On September 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 28.) On 

September 27, 2024, Defendant Monica Narvaiz filed an answer. (ECF No. 32.) On September 

27, 2024, Defendants Elizabeth Beltran, Frederick Beyerlein, Connie Gipson, Kevin Hixon, 

Jeffrey Macomber, Ulises Ojeda, Diane Toche, and Bianca Truong (“Moving Defendants”) filed 

a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff’s opposition is due on October 11, 2024. L.R. 230(c).

On October 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for administrative relief for leave to exceed 

the twenty-five page limit in his opposition to the Moving Defendants’ motion to dismiss by an 

additional 15-16 pages. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff proffers the extension of the page limit is 

warranted due to the procedurally complicated claims, myriad of questions of law, and requested 

dismissal of six defendants. 

On October 10, 2024, the Moving Defendants filed a “non-opposition” to Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:24-cv-00731-KES-SAB Document 37 Filed 10/11/24 Page 1 of 3
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

motion for administrative relief. (ECF No. 36.) However, the response states the “nonopposition” is contingent upon a limitation to a six page extension. Moving Defendants also 

attach emails from Plaintiff, dated October 10, 2024 at 8:00 a.m.—after Plaintiff filed its 

motion—showing that Plaintiff now only requests leave to exceed the twenty-five page limit by

six pages. Plaintiff also offers to stipulate to a reciprocal page extension to the Moving 

Defendants’ response. Moving Defendants do not request a reciprocal page limit extension in 

their “non-opposition.”

It is the Court’s understanding that Plaintiff’s requested relief has morphed from a motion 

for leave to file a 40-41 page opposition to a procedurally deficient stipulation to file a 31-page 

opposition. Moving Defendants’ “non-opposition” also contains what appears to be an agreement 

to a reciprocal six-page extension to the reply brief. 

Defendant Narvaiz, who has filed an answer to the first amended complaint has not filed 

an opposition or statement of support of the instant motion; however, the deadline to do so is 

October 15, 2024, after Plaintiff’s deadline to file the opposition to the motion to dismiss. L.R. 

233(b). The Court finds an opposition or statement of support by Narvaiz would not aid the 

Court’s determination of the instant motion. 

Given the Court’s understanding that Plaintiff and the Moving Defendants have mutually 

agreed to a six-page extension to their opposition and reply briefs, the Court finds good cause to 

grant Plaintiff’s motion for administrative relief in part. 

For the fourth time, the Court strongly encourages the parties to file a stipulation where 

they have agreed to the request submitted. (See ECF Nos. 20, 26, 27.) Where a stipulation 

cannot be obtained, parties may file a motion for administrative relief pursuant to Local Rule 233. 

However, the parties are reminded that a motion for administrative relief requires that the Court 

afford any non-moving party five days to file an opposition or supporting statement. L.R. 233(b).

All parties—not just those affected—are afforded the opportunity to file an opposition. As is the 

case here, a party filing a motion for administrative relief that relates to a deadline that is set to 

occur in fewer than six days risks a Court’s order on the motion issuing after the deadline. 

Alternatively, a properly filed application to shorten time accompanying a properly filed motion 

Case 1:24-cv-00731-KES-SAB Document 37 Filed 10/11/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

pursuant to Local Rule 230 may be entertained by the Court. See L.R. 144. Future motions 

requesting expedited relief without a corresponding application to shorten time (L.R. 144(e)) will 

be met with a bias towards denial. 

Accordingly, pursuant to the agreement of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for administrative relief to exceed the page limit (ECF No. 35) is 

GRANTED IN PART; 

2. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an opposition to the Moving Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss that does not exceed 31 pages; and

3. Moving Defendants are granted leave to file a reply brief that does not exceed 21 

pages. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00731-KES-SAB Document 37 Filed 10/11/24 Page 3 of 3