1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Gary Lewis, Case No. 2:25-cv-01893-CDS-MDC

5 Plaintiff Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages and Striking Plaintiff’s 6 v. Motion for Remand

7 Stephen Rogers, et al.,

8 Defendants [ECF Nos. 13, 14]

9 10 Plaintiff Gary Lewis moves for leave to file excess pages in support of his motion for 11 remand. Mot., ECF No. 13. Defendant United Automobile Insurance Company opposes the 12 motion. Opp’n, ECF No. 21. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is denied, and as a result, 13 Lewis’s motion to remand is stricken without prejudice. 14 I. Background 15 This case is the latest iteration of litigation brought by Lewis stemming from a car 16 accident that occurred almost 20 years ago—in 2007. See Pet., ECF No. 1 at 3, ¶ 13. Lewis 17 initiated this action in state court, but it was removed by the defendants on October 3, 2025. 18 ECF No. 1. Lewis has filed a motion for remand (ECF No. 14), and related to the remand motion, 19 a motion for leave to file excess pages (ECF No. 13).1 Lewis contends that he needs excess pages 20 because the defendants “have made false assertions and filed/attached irrelevant and 21 inappropriate pleadings to” the removal petition and misrepresented “facts,” making it 22 impossible to comply with the Local Rules. See ECF No. 13. 23 24 25 26 1 Lewis also files an alternative motion to remand, should the motion for leave to file excess pages be denied. ECF No. 16. 1 II. Discussion 2 “The court looks with disfavor on motions to exceed page limits, so permission to do so 3 will not be routinely granted. A motion to file a brief that exceeds . . . page limits will be granted 4 only upon a showing of good cause” and “must be filed before the motion or brief is due.” Local 5 Rule 7-3(c). The moving party must also state the number of additional pages requested, which 6 Lewis’s motion fails to do. Id. Lewis did not file a declaration “stating in detail the reasons for, 7 and number of, additional pages requested.” Id. Nor did he include a table of contents and 8 authorities in his motion to remand, as required by the same rule. Lewis’s failure to comply with 9 LR 7-3(c) is reason enough to deny the motion for leave to file excess pages. However, I also 10 deny it because Lewis fails establish good cause for his request. 11 Lewis contends that it is “impossible to comply with the Local Rules” based on the 12 allegations in the removal petition. I disagree. As a threshold matter, the font utilized by Lewis is 13 larger than necessary. The local rules require that pleadings use “size 12 font or larger.”2 Thus, by 14 using a font size larger than size 12, Lewis’s motion was longer than necessary. And if the 15 removal petition contains “irrelevant” pleadings—which Lewis alleges is the case here—then 16 there is no need to cite them in the remand motion. To the degree that the petition contains 17 “inappropriate pleadings, or asserts inaccurate facts,” there is no reason why counsel cannot 18 distill them down and then address them in a non-oversized brief. Certainly, the fact that 19 litigation related to this action has been pending for almost 20 years complicates summarizing 20 facts. But counsel should nevertheless be able to properly summarize relevant information so 21 this court can determine if remand is warranted. 22 Lewis has essentially confessed that he has taken the “kitchen sink” approach to 23 attacking the petition for removal.3 This imposes a substantial burden on the court. See Finisar 24 2 See LR IA 10-1(a)(3) (emphasis added). 25 3 As an example, the motion for excess pages states that “Defendants have also filed Notice of “Related Cases” that is inaccurate and inappropriate.” ECF No. 13 at 3. It is unclear why this information is 26 relevant to a jurisdictional question. Stated otherwise, there is simply no reason to address it in a motion for remand. Corp. v. Nistica, Inc.

, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2015) (cautioning that parties should not take a “kitchen sink” approach to filing motions where every conceivable ground for relief is included in the motion); see also United States v. Ruiz- Rivera, WL 4260949, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 23, 2020) (“Filing briefs with such a large number of pages, many of which appear 5}| to contain argument that is cut and pasted from other cases and not tailored to the specifics of 6]| this case, imposes a substantial burden on the Court.”). There is no reason for the procedural 7|| and factual background section in a remand motion to be over 30 pages long, especially given the argument in support of remand is barely two pages. See ECF No. 14 at 36-38. Indeed, much of Lewis’s motion for remand is directed at complaining about the language used by the defendants in their petition for removal instead of facts relevant to a jurisdictional analysis. See, eg. ECF No. 14 at 5-35. 12 I respect Lewis's right to be heard. However, I require Lewis to succinctly state his positions within the page limitations and parameters set forth in the Local Rules. Because I deny Lewis’s motion for leave to file excess pages, I strike the pending motion for remand without prejudice. 1611. Conclusion 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages [ECF 18]| No. 13] is DENIED. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for remand [ECF No. 14] is STRICKEN without prejudice. This order does not app yryo plaintiff's second motion for remand, docketed at ECF No. 16. 7 / 22 Dated: November 14, 2025 LZ

44 nided States District Judge 25 26