Theodorakis v. DFINITY Stiftung
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:23-cv-02280
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Theodorakis v. DFINITY Stiftung, Judge Martinez-Olguin struck an opposition for formatting violations and ordered Theodorakis to explain whether refiling should be allowed.
The order directly affected Plaintiff Theodorakis and his counsel by striking the opposition to the Individual Defendants’ motions to dismiss and requiring a response about possible refiling and sanctions. It concerned Individual Defendants Dominic Williams and Gian Bochsler; the opinion separately noted formatting in Plaintiff’s opposition to DFINITY Stiftung’s motion.
What happened
In Theodorakis v. DFINITY Stiftung, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Dominic Williams’s and Gian Bochsler’s motion to dismiss after the court denied his request for extra pages.
The court found that the opposition used Arial Narrow, exceeded the allowed characters per line, and used 10-point footnotes, effectively adding four pages. The opinion also noted that Plaintiff’s opposition to DFINITY Stiftung’s motion used the same format, although it did not appear to exceed the applicable page limit.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin struck Plaintiff’s opposition to the Individual Defendants’ motions to dismiss and ordered Plaintiff to explain why he should be allowed to file a corrected opposition and why his counsel should not be sanctioned. The response was due August 23, 2024, and a hearing was set for August 29, 2024.
The detailed version
- Theodorakis v. DFINITY Stiftung · No. 3:23-cv-02280
- Martinez-Olguin
- Aug. 20, 2024
Background
On August 5, 2024, Plaintiff requested permission to add ten pages to his opposition to Individual Defendants Dominic Williams’s and Gian Bochsler’s motion to dismiss. The court denied that request on August 6, 2024. Plaintiff filed the opposition on August 9, 2024.
Civil Local Rule 3-4(c)(2) requires filing papers to use a standard proportionally spaced font, at least 12-point type, and spacing of no more than 10 characters per horizontal inch. The court stated that these page limits promote efficient use of judicial resources and require parties to focus their arguments.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Plaintiff’s opposition used Arial Narrow with 14 to 15 characters per horizontal inch and used 10-point font in its footnotes. The court concluded that this formatting effectively added four pages to the opposition and violated the local rules.
The court therefore struck Plaintiff’s opposition to the Individual Defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court also ordered Plaintiff to show cause—that is, to explain—why he should be permitted to file a proper replacement opposition and why Plaintiff’s counsel should not be sanctioned for violating the August 6 order and the local rules.
Further proceedings
The court required Plaintiff to file a written response of no more than three pages by August 23, 2024, at noon Pacific Time. It set a hearing on the order to show cause for August 29, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time. The order did not decide the underlying motions to dismiss.
The opinion’s heading refers to “oppositions” in the plural, while the operative ruling specifically states that the opposition to the Individual Defendants’ motions to dismiss was struck. A footnote says that the opposition to DFINITY Stiftung’s motion did not appear to exceed the applicable page limit but used the same format and font.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.