Sneed v. The Procter & Gamble Company
- Jon Tigar
- 4:23-cv-05443
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Sneed v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Judge Tigar ordered plaintiffs to move footnote arguments into the brief’s body and postponed the motion-to-dismiss hearing.
The plaintiffs were required to address arguments placed in footnotes, while the defendant’s reply deadline and the motion-to-dismiss hearing were set for later dates.
What happened
In Sneed v. The Procter & Gamble Company, the plaintiffs opposed The Procter & Gamble Company’s motion to dismiss. The court noted that plaintiffs had placed many substantive arguments in footnotes, apparently to comply with page limits.
The court ordered plaintiffs, by March 12, 2024, either to waive those footnote arguments or file a brief presenting them in the body. The defendant’s reply remained due March 26, 2024, and the hearing was continued to May 2, 2024.
Judge Jon S. Tigar issued this order about the briefing. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Sneed v. The Procter & Gamble Company · No. 4:23-cv-05443
- Jon Tigar
- Mar. 8, 2024
Background
Plaintiffs filed an opposition to The Procter & Gamble Company’s motion to dismiss. The court observed that plaintiffs had placed many substantive arguments in footnotes, including footnotes on pages 17, 19, 21, 22, 27, 29, 30, and 32. The court cited its prior practice of declining to consider arguments raised only in footnotes and cases stating that such arguments are generally treated as waived.
Order
The court required plaintiffs, by March 12, 2024, to either file a statement waiving arguments contained in footnotes or file a brief placing those arguments in the body of the document. The defendant’s reply was due March 26, 2024. The court continued the hearing on the motion to dismiss to May 2, 2024, at 2:00 p.m.
What the Order Decided
This was an interim briefing and scheduling order. The court did not rule on the motion to dismiss or decide the parties’ underlying legal claims. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order on March 8, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.