Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 24STCP00508, Date: 2025-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP00508    Hearing Date: January 16, 2025    Dept: 86

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS

Date:               1/16/25 (1:30 PM)

Case:                           Jordan Ziegler, M.D. v. Medical Board of California (24STCP00508)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Ex Parte Application for request to consider oversized brief is taken OFF CALENDER based on petitioner’s notice of withdrawal filed on 1/6/25.

The hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate is CONTINUED to 3/4/25, at 01:30 PM, in Department 86 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

On 11/15/24, petitioner Jordan Ziegler, M.D. filed an opening brief that was 19 and a half pages in length. On 12/6/24, petitioner filed an amended opening brief with amended citations. The amended opening brief was 20 and a half pages.

The opening brief was subject to a maximum page limit of 15 pages. (Rule of Court 3.1113(d); Local Rule 3.231(i).) Petitioner did not obtain an order for an oversized brief prior to filing either opening brief. Petitioner was required to seek permission to file a longer opening brief at least 24 hours before the brief was due. (Rule of Court 3.1113(e).) Respondent does not object to the filing of the amended opening brief with amended citations, but respondent objects to the length of the opening brief. (Opp. at 12, fn. 10.)

“A memorandum that exceeds the page limits of these rules must be filed and considered in the same manner as a late-filed paper.” (Rule of Court 3.1113(g).) Because the opening brief exceeds 15 pages, the Court considers the opening brief in the same manner as a late-filed paper. While the Court would be well within its discretion to disregard the opening brief, the Court shall consider the amended opening brief. (Rule of Court 3.1300(d) [“No paper may be rejected for filing on the ground that it was untimely submitted for filing. If the court, in its discretion, refuses to consider a late filed paper, the minutes or order must so indicate”].) 

To address the potential prejudice to respondent resulting from the oversized amended opening brief, the Court will provide respondent with an opportunity to file a sur-reply not to exceed 5 pages as a supplement to its 15-page opposition filed on 12/13/24. Respondent may file a sur-reply no later than 1/31/25. No response to the sur-reply may be filed.

Further, on 7/16/24, during the Trial Setting Conference, the Court ordered counsel to prepare a Joint Appendix consistent with the Courtroom Information for Department 86 if the administrative record exceeds 400 pages. The Court ordered the Joint Appendix to be a hard copy and lodged with the Court simultaneously with the administrative record.  (7/16/24 Minute Order.)

The Court has received two (2) USB drives—one with a redacted administrative record and the other with an unredacted administrative record. The record on both USB drives is 3,741 pages long. Despite the record being more than 400 pages, no Joint Appendix has been lodged with the Court.

The Court notes that on 1/2/25, the parties filed a “Joint Appendix and Master Index of Administrative Record.” The filing contains an index of the administrative record. However, no pages of the record were attached to the filing. Even if pages of the record were attached, the parties still did not lodge at least one three-inch ring binder or more, as required by the Courtroom for Department 86. (See Courtroom Information for Department 86, located at https://www.lacourt.org/courtroominformation/ui/result.aspx.) No later than 1/31/25, counsel are ordered to lodge a Joint Appendix with Department 86 that complies with the Courtroom Information for Department 86.

Based on leave for respondent to file a sur-reply and the parties’ obligation to lodge a Joint Appendix with the Court, the hearing on the Petition for Writ of Mandate is CONTINUED to 3/4/25, at 1:30 PM, in Department 86 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.