HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018CV217 - MONTGOMERY V. CHERNAK, HOWARD & BROUGH - 022 - MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITSIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 18-cv-00217-REB-KLM
WILLIAM MONTGOMERY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW CHERNAK,
MIKE HOWARD,
MATTHEW BROUGH.
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby moves the court for an exception to
the Court’s Civ. Practice Standard III(A) pertaining to page limitations, to permit Plaintiff ten
(10) additional pages for his response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. In support, Plaintiff
states as follows:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a)
Undersigned counsel certifies that he has conferred with counsel for Defendants via email
concerning the motion. Defendants oppose the relief sought herein.
1. On May 9, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 16). Plaintiff’s
response deadline is currently May 30, 2018.
2. The Courts’ Practice Standard III(A) limits the number of pages that may be offered
in response to such a motion to 15 pages.
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 22 Filed 05/30/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
3. Defendants’ motion includes a cornucopia of arguments, including that the Court
should review outside exhibits, claims about Plaintiff’s prior Complaint, factual argument about
probable cause, assertions of qualified immunity regarding three constitutional claims, and in-
depth argument about recent developments in the status of the law pertaining to malicious
prosecution and First Amendment retaliation claims.
4. Defendants motion is peppered with argument in footnotes that were obviously
designed to save space in the pleading.
5. In response, Plaintiff must not only respond to address all of the matters raised in
Defendants’ motion, but must have sufficient room to address fact-intensive claims, including the
lack of probable pertaining to five criminal charges that were originally asserted against Plaintiff,
in support of the wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution theories. The First Amendment
retaliation claim is also fact-intensive.
6. Moreover, as this Court is aware, the mere assertion of qualified immunity places
a heavy burden on Plaintiff that typically requires much more citation and explanation to address
than Defendants’ require to assert.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court
GRANT this motion and permit Plaintiff to exceed the page limitations by ten (10) pages when
responding to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Civil Rights Litigation Group, PLLC
/ __Raymond K. Bryant________
Raymond K. Bryant
Civil Rights Litigation Group, PLLC
1543 Champa St. #400
Denver, CO 80202
P: 720-515-6165
F: 720-465-1975
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 22 Filed 05/30/18 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Raymond@rightslitigation.com
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on this 29th day of May, 2018, a true and correct copy of
Plaintiff’s MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
was filed with the Court and is expected to be served on the following entities registered
with the ECF system:
Attorneys for Defendants
Thomas J. Lyons, Esq.
Christina S. Gunn, Esq.
Hall & Evans, L.L.C.
1001 17th
Street, Suite 300,
Denver, CO 80202
303-628-3300 /
Fax: 303-628-3368
lyonst@hallevans.com /
s/ Raymond K. Bryant__
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 22 Filed 05/30/18 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3