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.