Adler v. Relynet, Inc., et al.,
Filing
263
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/4/2010: Defendants having applied for permission to file a brief that exceeds the courts 25-page limit by one page, and good cause having been shown, Defendants request isGRANTED.(Matson, R)
<![CDATA[
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
STEPHEN L. DAVIS (State Bar No. 149817) MARK R. LEONARD (State Bar No. 219186) DAVIS & LEONARD, LLP 8880 Cal Center Drive, Suite 180 Sacramento, California 95826 Telephone: (916) 362-9000 Fax: (916) 362-9066 E-mail: sdavis@davisandleonard.com Attorneys for Defendants RelyNet, Inc. and Michael DiCarlo
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DUSTIN K. ADLER, an individual, Plaintiff, v. RELYNET, INC. a California corporation and MICHAEL DICARLO, an individual, INTERNET BRANDS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, INTERMEDIA OUTDOORS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, VORTEX MEDIA GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusively, Defendants. RELYNET, INC., a California Corporation, MICHAEL DICARLO, an individual, Counterclaimants, v. DUSTIN K. ADLER, an individual, Counterdefendant. CASE NO. 2-08-CV-01333-JAM-EFB EX PARTE APPLICATION BY DEFENDANTS RELYNET, INC. AND MICHAEL DICARLO TO EXCEED 25PAGE LIMIT FOR MOTIONS; ORDER THEREON Trial Date: Time: Courtroom: Hearing Date: Time: Courtroom: January 25, 2010 9:00 a.m. 6 April 7, 2010 9:30 a.m. 6
DEFENDANTS MICHAEL DICARLO AND RELYNET, INC. hereby request permission to file a combined memorandum of points and authorities in support of their motions for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 and for new trial under Rule 59.
1
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT; ORDER
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 memorandum of points and authorities is a little less than 26 pages, while the pagelimit contained in the Court's August 20, 2008 scheduling order is 25 pages. The reasons for this request are as follows: 1. For the sake of convenience to the Court the defendants have combined
their Rule 50 and Rule 59 motions into a single motion and single memorandum of points and authorities. The defendants have attempted to comply with that portion of the Court's August 20, 2008 scheduling order which forbids parties from avoiding the filing of an excessively long brief by filing multiple motion papers, but the result is that the brief is a page too long. 2. The memorandum of points and authorities refers to the entire trial record,
including exhibits and witness testimony, and separately recites the relevant evidence at trial, for the sake of clarity and including as many of the relevant facts in a single pleading as possible. 3. The memorandum of points and authorities concerns multiple significant
legal issues and questions, and there is a significant body of precedent and authority, especially on the questions of estoppel and co-ownership, to discuss. 4. 5. The memorandum exceeds the page limit by only one page. Exceeding the page limit in this instance by one page will not cause
excessive hardship or vexation to any party or to the court and is warranted by the significance and complexity of the issues.
DATED: March 3, 2010
DAVIS & LEONARD LLP /s/Stephen L. Davis__________________ Stephen L. Davis DAVIS & LEONARD, LLP Attorneys for RelyNet, Inc. and Michael DiCarlo
2
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT; ORDER
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 Dated: March 4, 2010
ORDER Defendants having applied for permission to file a brief that exceeds the court's 25page limit by one page, and good cause having been shown, Defendants' request is GRANTED.
/s/ John A. Mendez_____________ Judge John A. Mendez United States District Court Judge
3
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT; ORDER
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
