Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: BC716805, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC716805    Hearing Date: October 25, 2022    Dept: S27

The Court was previously scheduled to hear this motion on 9/15/22.  Prior to the hearing, it issued a tentative ruling that stated:

Plaintiffs filed their opposition to this motion on 9/01/22.  The opposition is twenty pages long, and contains a footnote on page six that states, “This brief is 1.5 spaced as permitted by CRC Rule 2.108(1).  Plaintiffs failed, however, to read the remainder of the rule.  2.108(4) makes clear that line numbers must be aligned with a line of type, and that there must be at least three line numbers for every vertical inch of the page.  Plaintiffs’ brief managed to squeeze 37 lines of type onto each page.  A page is eleven inches long. 

Notably, Rule 2.109 requires page numbers, and Rule 2.110 requires a footer, which will necessarily take some space at the bottom of the page. 

While the Court could not find a rule specifically governing the top of the page, Rule 2.115 requires space for hole punching when papers are not electronically filed, and this space also takes up almost an inch at the top of the document; the Court has never seen papers with text commencing at the absolute top of the page. 

Additionally, Rule 2.104 requires 12-point or larger type font.  The Court copied and pasted Plaintiffs’ brief into word, and one page from the brief took up 1.25 pages when copied and pasted and then put into Times New Roman 12-point font. 

When all the above defects are put together, the Court suspects Plaintiffs’ opposing brief is in the neighborhood of 35-40 actual pages long, about double what is permitted.  This case is not particularly complicated, and the Court would not have been inclined to grant an application for leave to file an oversized opposition document. 

The Court finds it would not be in the interest of justice to refuse to consider the document and rule on the motion based only on the moving papers, as summary judgment is an extreme remedy.  The Court is instead continuing the hearing on the motion to require Plaintiffs to file a brief that complies with all Rules of Court. 

The Court is mindful of the fact that the case is set for an FSC on 10/14/22 and trial on 10/17/22.  The hearing on this motion is continued to Tuesday, 10/25/22.  Plaintiffs must file an opposition in compliance with all Rules of Court no later than Wednesday, 10/05/22.  If Defendant wishes to file an updated reply in light of the updated opposition, it must do so no later than Friday, 10/14/22.    

The FSC is continued to Friday, 1/13/23.  The trial date is continued to Tuesday, 1/17/23.

On 10/05/22, Plaintiffs filed updated opposition papers.  Plaintiffs submitted the Declaration of Counsel, David D. DeRubertis, with their updated papers.  Counsel declares, at ¶23, in pertinent part, “there are ‘at least three line numbers for every vertical inch on the page.’”  The Court printed out a page of the opposition brief.  Between line 1 and line 36, there are 8.5 vertical inches.  36 lines of type spread over 8.5 vertical inches = 4.235.  Plaintiffs have therefore placed 4.235 lines on every vertical inch of space, in excess of the three lines permitted per Rule 2.108(4). 

Plaintiffs correctly note that Rule 2.108 permits 1.5 or 2.0 line spacing.  This is because Courier 12 is a permitted font, and is much bigger than Times New Roman.  When Courier 12 is used, 1.5 spacing results in three lines per vertical inch.  However, when Times New Roman is combined with 1.5 spacing, the end result is not permitted.

The Court will give Plaintiffs one more chance to fix this defect.  The hearing on the motion is continued to Thursday, 11/17/22.  Plaintiffs must file their updated brief per Code, and Defendant may file any reply per Code.  If Plaintiffs’ brief remains out of compliance with the Rules of Court, the Court will treat the over-sized brief as late-filed and refuse to consider it. 

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.