Taylor v. Kelety

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LULA MAE TAYLOR, Case No.: 20-cv-1987-DMS-AGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR v. RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE JULIA CRAIG KELETY, et al., EXCESS PAGES 15 Defendants.

17 On March 5, 2021, Plaintiff Lula Mae Taylor, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s February 17, 2021 denial of her request for leave to file excess pages in opposition to Defendants California Judicial Council, Julia Craig Kelety, and Superior Court of California’s (“Judicial Defendants”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 27.)

22 “Given [a] district court’s inherent power to control [its] docket[], whether to grant leave to exceed the page limits set forth in the Civil Local Rules appears to be at the full discretion of the Court.” Traylor Bros. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., No. 08-CV-1019- L WVG, 2012 WL 1019966, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2012) (citing United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). Although Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause, given that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court in its discretion grants Plaintiff leave to file an opposition of fifty (50) pages.

1 Plaintiff is ordered to file her opposition to the Judicial Defendants’ motion within || fourteen (14) days of this Order. The Judicial Defendants may file a reply within fourteen || (14) days of the filing of Plaintiff's response in opposition. Plaintiff is once again warned ||that failure to comply with the Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or an || order of the Court may be grounds for dismissal or other sanctions. See Civ. L.R. 83.1.

6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 || Dated: March 10, 2021 em Dh 9 an Yn.

10 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 1]