Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
3:10-cv-00257 #148

3:10-cv-00257 #148

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc #148
Doc #148

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Aug 17, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/17/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 I
NTERVENOR
-D
EFENDANT
U.S.
 
H
OUSE OF
R
EPRESENTATIVES
 
M
OTION TO
S
TRIKE
E
XTRINSIC
M
ATERIALS
—C
ASE
N
O
.
 
3:10-
CV
-257-JSW1234567891011121314151617181920212223PAUL D. CLEMENT, ESQ. (DC Bar 433215)pclement@bancroftpllc.comH. CHRISTOPHER BARTOLOMUCCI, ESQ. (DC Bar 453423)cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.comCONOR B. DUGAN, ESQ. (MI Bar P66901)cdugan@bancroftpllc.comBANCROFT PLLC1919 M Street, NW, Suite 470Washington, DC 20036202-234-0090 (phone); 202-234-2806 (fax)OF COUNSEL:KERRY W. KIRCHER, GENERAL COUNSEL (DC Bar 386816)Kerry.Kircher@mail.house.govJOHN D. FILAMOR, SR. ASS’T COUNSEL (DC Bar 476240)John.Filamor@mail.house.govCHRISTINE DAVENPORT, SR. ASS’T COUNSEL (NJ Bar)Christine.Davenport@mail.house.govKATHERINE E. MCCARRON, ASS’T COUNSEL (DC Bar 486335)Katherine.McCarron@mail.house.govWILLIAM PITTARD, ASS’T COUNSEL (DC Bar 482949)William.Pittard@mail.house.govKIRSTEN W. KONAR, ASS’T COUNSEL (DC Bar 979176)Kirsten.Konar@mail.house.govOFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSELU.S. House of Representatives219 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515202-225-9700 (phone); 202-226-1360 (fax)Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan LegalAdvisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
)KAREN GOLINSKI, ) Case No. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW) Hearing: Sept. 16, 2011 9:00 a.m.)Plaintiff, )
INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT THE
 )
BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY
vs. )
GROUP OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document148 Filed07/15/11 Page1 of 7
 
 1I
NTERVENOR
-D
EFENDANT
U.S.
 
H
OUSE OF
R
EPRESENTATIVES
 
M
OTION TO
S
TRIKE
E
XTRINSIC
M
ATERIALS
—C
ASE
N
O
.
 
3:10-
CV
-257-JSW1234567891011121314151617181920212223)
REPRESENTATIVES’ MOTION TO
UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL )
STRIKE EXTRINSIC MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT,
et al.
, ))Defendants. )__________________________________________)The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (“theHouse”) hereby moves this Court to strike the extrinsic evidence inappropriately attached to, andcited in, Plaintiff’s opposition to the House’s motion to dismiss.
See
Pl.’s Mem. of P&A inOpp’n to Defs.’ and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group’s Mots. to Dismiss (“Pl.’s Opp’n”), ECFNo. 133; Exs. to Pl.’s Opp’n, ECF Nos. 134-138.The House filed its motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint on June 3,2011. ECF No. 119. In response, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion that sought leave tofile a brief that would both oppose the House’s motion to dismiss and support a motion forsummary judgment to be filed by the Plaintiff. ECF No. 121. The House opposed Plaintiff’sadministrative motion and specifically objected to “Plaintiff’s request to incorporate argumentsand evidence relevant only to summary judgment into a consolidated brief on the House’smotion to dismiss.” House’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Admin. Mot. 1, ECF No. 127. In its opposition, theHouse pointed out that “‘matters outside the pleadings’ generally cannot be considered on amotion to dismiss,”
id 
. at 2 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d)), and that it would be inappropriate forPlaintiff in her brief opposing the House’s motion to dismiss to “incorporate materials fromoutside the pleadings — such as expert reports — not cognizable in opposition to a motion todismiss.”
 Id 
. at 3. The House also objected that “it clearly would be premature to require theHouse to respond” to a summary judgment motion since the House was granted leave tointervene only on June 3, 2011.
 Id 
. at 4.
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document148 Filed07/15/11 Page2 of 7
 
 2I
NTERVENOR
-D
EFENDANT
U.S.
 
H
OUSE OF
R
EPRESENTATIVES
 
M
OTION TO
S
TRIKE
E
XTRINSIC
M
ATERIALS
—C
ASE
N
O
.
 
3:10-
CV
-257-JSW1234567891011121314151617181920212223On June 15, 2011, this Court denied Plaintiff’s request for leave to inject summary judgment evidence in her opposition to the House’s motion to dismiss, stating that “her motion isdenied as premature.” Order at 2, ECF No. 128.Plaintiff, however, refused to take no for an answer. Despite the clear import of thisCourt’s ruling — and of Rule 12(b)(6) — Plaintiff proceeded to attach to her opposition fiveexpert affidavits,
see
ECF Nos. 134-138. She also proceeded to liberally cite and rely upon thosematerials throughout her opposition to the House’s motion.
See
Pl.’s Opp’n at 10-11, 12 & n.7,13 n.10, 15, 23, 25 nn.21-22. Numerous other materials extrinsic to the Second AmendedComplaint are also cited in Plaintiff’s opposition.
See
,
e.g
.,
id 
. at 13 nn.8-9, 14 nn.11-12, 15n.15, 25 n.21.As this Court is well aware, “a district court may not consider any material beyond thepleadings in ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion.”
 Lee v. City of Los Angeles
, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9thCir. 2001) (citation omitted). Indeed, Rule 12 provides that consideration of such mattersconverts the motion to “one for summary judgment under Rule 56.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d);
seealso Lee
, 250 F.3d at 688. Exceptions to this rule are limited to situations where the “complaintnecessarily relies on [the extrinsic materials],”
Lee
, 250 F.3d at 688, or where the court “take[s] judicial notice of matters of public record,”
id.
at 688-89
 
(internal quotation marks omitted).Here, Plaintiff’s five expert affidavits are not subject to judicial notice, as they are the opinionsof individuals, not matters like dates or places that can be confirmed through record checks.
See,e.g.
,
Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distrib., Inc.
, 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986),
overruled on other grounds by Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino
, 501 U.S. 104 (1991). Nor do her claimsof unlawful agency action and withholding of benefits “necessarily rel[y]” on the opinionevidence of these five academics.
See Parrino v. FHP, Inc.
, 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998)
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document148 Filed07/15/11 Page3 of 7

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->