Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 16, 2019

Scott Griffith Collaborative Solutions, LLC v. Falck Northern California Corp.

Judge
Saundra Armstrong
Docket
4:19-cv-06104
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In Scott Griffith Collaborative Solutions v. Falck Northern California, Judge Armstrong struck the injunction motion and opposition papers for violating filing rules.

Who this affects

The plaintiff’s preliminary-injunction motion and the defendants’ opposition papers were removed from the record; the plaintiff may refile after following the court’s requirements.

What happened

Scott Griffith Collaborative Solutions, LLC asked the court for a preliminary injunction. The motion and the defendants’ opposition exceeded the court’s 15-page limit.

The defendants also filed separate objections to the plaintiff’s evidence, even though the local rule required those objections to be included in the opposition brief. The court declined to consider the noncompliant papers.

Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong struck the plaintiff’s motion and the defendants’ opposition papers from the record. The plaintiff may refile after meeting and conferring with the defendants and following the court’s rules.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Scott Griffith Collaborative Solutions, LLC v. Falck Northern California Corp. · No. 4:19-cv-06104
Judge
Saundra Armstrong
Date
Oct. 16, 2019

Background

Scott Griffith Collaborative Solutions, LLC, doing business as SG Collaborative Solutions, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against Falck Northern California Corp., Care Ambulance Service, Inc., and Falck USA, Inc. The motion was scheduled for November 12, 2019.

The court’s standing orders required a written certification that the parties had met and conferred in good faith before filing a motion or other request. They also limited motions and oppositions to 15 pages, except for summary-judgment motions, and limited replies to 10 pages. The plaintiff’s motion and the defendants’ opposition exceeded the 15-page limit. The defendants also filed two separate objections to the plaintiff’s evidence.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) requires evidentiary and procedural objections to be included in the brief or memorandum rather than filed separately. The court found that the parties had violated the standing orders and local rules and declined to consider the noncompliant papers.

Ruling

The court ordered that the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and the defendants’ opposition papers, identified as Docket Nos. 11, 22, and 23, be stricken from the record. It allowed the plaintiff to refile the motion after satisfying the meet-and-confer requirement and complying with the local rules and standing orders. The parties were also ordered to provide courtesy copies of their motion papers and supporting exhibits in indexed and tabbed binders. Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong did not decide the merits of the requested preliminary injunction in this order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.