Filed: Dec. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 05, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Presently before the court is the matter of Miller v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., et al., case no. 2:17-cv-02103-JCM-DJA. Plaintiff Melva N. Miller asserts six causes of action against defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. ("Greyhound"): negligence; strict products liability; negligent failure to inspect and warn; breach of implied warranty; negligent hiring, training, and supervision; 1 and negligent entrustment. (ECF No. 1). On December 4, 2019, Greyhound
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Presently before the court is the matter of Miller v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., et al., case no. 2:17-cv-02103-JCM-DJA. Plaintiff Melva N. Miller asserts six causes of action against defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. ("Greyhound"): negligence; strict products liability; negligent failure to inspect and warn; breach of implied warranty; negligent hiring, training, and supervision; 1 and negligent entrustment. (ECF No. 1). On December 4, 2019, Greyhound f..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is the matter of Miller v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., et al., case no. 2:17-cv-02103-JCM-DJA. Plaintiff Melva N. Miller asserts six causes of action against defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. ("Greyhound"): negligence; strict products liability; negligent failure to inspect and warn; breach of implied warranty; negligent hiring, training, and supervision;1 and negligent entrustment. (ECF No. 1).
On December 4, 2019, Greyhound filed seven motions for partial summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 98-101, 104-105). Each motion addresses one of the six causes of action, and the seventh motion addresses plaintiff's request for punitive damages. See id.
Local Rule 7-3 provides that "[m]otions for summary judgment and responses to motions for summary judgment are limited to 30 pages, excluding exhibits." LR 7-3(a). The Rule also states that, "[i]n the absence of a court order by the deadline for the underlying motion or brief, the motion to exceed page limits is deemed denied." LR 7-3(c).
Greyhound's motions are clearly an attempt to sidestep the 30-page limit for summary judgment motions. Courts in this district have denied rule-evading motions in similar circumstances.
For instance, in Ahuja v. W. United Ins. Co., "[d]efendant proceeded to file four separate motions for summary judgment. Three motions attacked [p]laintiff's contract-based claims, [p]laintiff's claim under Nevada's unfair trade practices laws, and [p]laintiff's request for punitive damages. The fourth motion contested whether the car accident caused [p]laintiff's injuries." Ahuja v. W. United Ins. Co., No. 3:13-CV-00038-MMD, 2015 WL 5310751, at *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 11, 2015). The court noted that, "[t]ogether, [d]efendant's four motions exceeded the local rules' page limit" and "accordingly denied the motions without prejudice and ordered their consolidation." Id.
Thus, the court will deny the motions without prejudice. Greyhound is instructed to file a single motion for summary judgment that complies with this court's rules.
The court finds it necessary to remind Greyhound of Local Rule 7-3(c), which provides, in relevant part, as follows:
The court looks with disfavor on motions to exceed page limits, so permission to do so will not be routinely granted. A motion to file a brief that exceeds these page limits will be granted only upon a showing of good cause. A motion to exceed these page limits must be filed before the motion or brief is due and must be accompanied by a declaration stating in detail the reasons for, and number of, additional pages requested. The motion must not be styled as an ex parte or emergency motion and is limited to three pages in length. Failure to comply with 42 this subsection will result in denial of the request. The filing of a motion to exceed the page limit does not stay the deadline for the underlying motion or brief.
LR 7-3(c).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Greyhound's motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 98) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Greyhound's motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 99) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Greyhound's motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 100) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Greyhound's motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 101) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Greyhound's motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 103) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Greyhound's motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 104) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Greyhound's motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 105) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice.
