Potter v. Chevron Products Co., 17-cv-06689-PJH. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180717722
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 16, 2018
Summary: ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW Re: Dkt. No. 57 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON , District Judge . On March 2, 2018, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended complaint. Dkt. 27. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion, and defendant filed a reply. Dkts. 40-41. At that point, neither party was permitted to file additional memoranda without the court's prior approval, with limited exceptions. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). On June 22, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
Summary: ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW Re: Dkt. No. 57 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON , District Judge . On March 2, 2018, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended complaint. Dkt. 27. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion, and defendant filed a reply. Dkts. 40-41. At that point, neither party was permitted to file additional memoranda without the court's prior approval, with limited exceptions. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). On June 22, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave t..
More
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW Re: Dkt. No. 57
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.
On March 2, 2018, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended complaint. Dkt. 27. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion, and defendant filed a reply. Dkts. 40-41. At that point, neither party was permitted to file additional memoranda without the court's prior approval, with limited exceptions. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d).
On June 22, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum regarding defendant's motion to dismiss. Dkt. 51. The court denied plaintiffs' motion. Dkt. 56. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a memorandum regarding defendant's motion to dismiss in contravention of the court's order. Dkt. 57.
Plaintiffs' memorandum of law filed at Docket Number 57 is hereby STRICKEN from the docket, given that it was prohibited by the Northern District of California's local rules. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d); see Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1125 (9th Cir. 2003).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
