JOHNSON v. MGM HOLDINGS INC.

Case No. C17-541 RSM.

MARY L. JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MGM HOLDINGS INC.; METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC.; TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX HOME ENTERTAINMENT LLC; and TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FOX, INC., DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity
Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mary L. Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Alan J. Statman , STATMAN, HARRIS & EYRICH, LLC, pro hac vice.

Mary L. Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Sether Kleinberg , EISENHOWER & CARLSON & Sylvie Derrien , STATMAN, HARRIS & EYRICH, LLC, pro hac vice.

MGM Holdings, Inc, Defendant, represented by John S. Devlin, III , LANE POWELL PC, Samuel T. Boyd , MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, pro hac vice & Tamerlin J. Godley , MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, pro hac vice.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc, Defendant, represented by John S. Devlin, III , LANE POWELL PC, Samuel T. Boyd , MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, pro hac vice & Tamerlin J. Godley , MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, pro hac vice.

Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, LLC, Defendant, represented by John S. Devlin, III , LANE POWELL PC, Samuel T. Boyd , MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, pro hac vice & Tamerlin J. Godley , MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, pro hac vice.

Twenty First Century Fox, Inc, Defendant, represented by John S. Devlin, III , LANE POWELL PC, Samuel T. Boyd , MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, pro hac vice & Tamerlin J. Godley , MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, pro hac vice.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVER-LENGTH BRIEF

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, Chief District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Mary L. Johnson's Motion for Approval to File an Over-length Brief. Dkt. #25. Ms. Johnson's response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is due on May 15, 2017. Pursuant to local rule, her response cannot exceed twenty-four pages. LCR 7(e)(3). Ms. Johnson now requests a four page extension, allowing her brief to be twenty-eight pages in length. In support of this request, Ms. Johnson argues only that "[t]his is a putative class action with potentially national implication in which the Defendants have raised complex threshold issues of state and federal law concerning Plaintiff's right to maintain this action." Dkt. #25 at 2.

Motions seeking approval to file an over-length motion or brief are disfavored. LCR 7(f). The Court finds that Ms. Johnson has failed to set forth sufficient grounds for her requested extension. There is nothing particularly unique about a motion to dismiss a putative class action that raises issues of state and federal law, and Ms. Johnson fails to provide the Court with further details supporting her request.

Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff Mary L. Johnson's Motion for Approval to File an Over-length Brief (Dkt. #25) is DENIED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases