Opinion
CV-20-00884-PHX-SPL
07-26-2022
Tina Weeks, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Matrix Absence Management Incorporated, Defendant.
ORDER
Honorable Steven P. Logan United States District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Strike (Doc. 117), in which Defendant asks the Court to strike Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class (Doc. 113) and the Memorandum in Support (Doc. 114) as well as Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion for Decertification (Doc. 116) for noncompliance with LRCiv 7.2 and this Court's Orders. In its July 7, 2022 Order, the Court struck Plaintiff's first Motion to Certify Class (Doc. 107) and its associated documents (Docs. 108-110) for noncompliance with LRCiv 7.2(e)(1)'s 17-page limit. (Doc. 111). The Court clearly stated that “[t]he parties may refile the Motions in compliance with the Local Rules and with the Case Management Order's requirement that ‘[c]itations in support of any assertion in the text shall be included in the text, not in footnotes.'” (Doc. 111 at 1 (quoting Doc. 52 at 7) (emphasis added)).
The Court also struck Defendant's Motion of Decertification of Collective Action (Doc. 105) for noncompliance with the page limit. Defendant's refiled Motion (Doc. 112) is in compliance with the page limit.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs' refiled Motion for Class Certification (Docs. 113, 114) and its Response to Defendant's Motion for Decertification (Doc. 116) both run onto an eighteenth page, and their citations are found almost entirely in footnotes. Not only have Plaintiffs shown a complete lack of attention to this Court's Orders-even after the Motion was stricken once already-but it is also clear to the Court that Plaintiffs' extensive use of single-spaced footnotes and block quotations is an attempt to circumvent the page limit. As stated previously, “[e]ven if matters are complex, it is counsel's responsibility to be clear and concise.” (Doc. 111 at 1). Thus, Plaintiffs' Motion and its associated documents along with their Response to Defendant's Motion will be stricken. Plaintiffs are warned that any further filings that fail to comply with the Local Rules or this Court's Orders will be stricken without leave to refile and may result in sanctions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Strike (Doc. 117) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall strike Plaintiff Samantha Stocklein's Motion to Certify Class (Doc. 113) and its associated documents (Docs. 114, 115) and Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion for Decertification (Doc. 116).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiffs choose to refile the Motion and Response stricken by this order in a form compliant with the Local Rules and the Case Management Order, they must do so no later than July 27, 2022.