Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Estate of Tyler S. Rushing v. AG Private Protection, Inc., 2:18-cv-01692-MCE-AC. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20191115842 Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 14, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 14, 2019
Summary: DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF BUTTE, BUTTE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AND IAN DICKERSON'S REQUEST TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INSUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Defendants COUNTY OF BUTTE, BUTTE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, and IAN DICKERSON ("County Defendants") respectfully request permission from this Cour
More

DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF BUTTE, BUTTE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AND IAN DICKERSON'S REQUEST TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INSUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

Defendants COUNTY OF BUTTE, BUTTE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, and IAN DICKERSON ("County Defendants") respectfully request permission from this Court to file a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment in excess of the twenty-page limit as contained in the Court's Standing Orders.

In support of this request, County Defendants state that they have attempted in good faith to comply with the page limitation as set forth above, and have made every effort to eliminate extraneous arguments from their Memorandum, but it has become apparent that County Defendants cannot properly address each of the issues in its memorandum within the twenty-page limitation given the complex issues involved in this case, and that Plaintiff alleges eight claims for relief and numerous allegations in support of those claims.

WHEREFORE, County Defendants respectfully request that:

1. County Defendants be allowed to up to twenty-seven (27) pages for their Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment.

2. Any opposition to said motion may also be up to twenty-seven (27) pages in length; and

3. Any reply shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages.

Dated: July 26, 2016 Respectfully submitted, PORTER SCOTT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION By /s/Stephen E. Horan Stephen E. Horan William E. Camy Attorney for Defendants COUNTY OF BUTTE, BUTTE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, and IAN DICKERSON

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. County Defendants be allowed to up to twenty-seven (27) pages for their Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment.

2. Any opposition to said motion may also be up to twenty-seven (27) pages in length; and

3. Any reply shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer