Judge: Michael D. Washington, Case: 37-2024-00004281-CU-BT-NC, Date: 2024-05-10 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 09, 2024

05/10/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael D Washington

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Business Tort Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2024-00004281-CU-BT-NC HARRISON VS BIGELOW [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Notice of Hearing, 03/12/2024

The Demurrer to Complaint brought by defendants Janice and Alex Bigelow (collectively, Defendants) is continued to Friday, June 7, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Department N-31.

On its own motion, the Court STRIKES the Opposition brief filed by plaintiff Aaron Harrison (Plaintiff) on April 29, 2024 (ROA 27) for violation of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d).

Plaintiff filed an opposition brief in this matter that totals 22 pages. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113 set forth that opposition brief are limited to 15 pages. That rule also specifies the procedure for seeking leave of court to exceed the page limit. Plaintiff failed to avail himself of the measures available for obtaining such leave. As such, the Opposition brief is currently in violation of the rules, and Defendants have objected to it.

While the Court on occasion exercises discretion to overlook small infractions that go over the page limited by one or maybe even two pages, the infraction here amounts to seven pages. While the Practice Guide offers some opportunity to review such briefing by merely 'stopping reading' after 15 pages, the Court does not find that to be the best resolution either in terms of considering the substantive merits or in terms of allowing mistakes of this nature to persist or go unnoticed. As such, the Court strikes the current opposition brief as being in violation of the rules, but continues the matter to provide the opposing party with an opportunity to correct the error and draft, file, and serve a code-compliant opposition brief limited to 15 pages. As a caution, the Court warns that a second failure to comply with the page limit rules in this case may result in a harsher sanction of striking the filing without giving additional time to correct the error.

The revised/amended opposition brief, and any supplemental reply brief addressing the arguments therein shall be per code based upon the new hearing date of June 7, 2024.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3101608