Sneed
Sneed v. The Procter & Gamble Company
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STEPHEN SNEED, et al., Case No. 23-cv-05443-JST
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’
9 v. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
10 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Re: ECF No. 26 Defendant. 11
12 13 The Court has received Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 14 26. The Court notes that Plaintiffs have moved many of their substantive arguments into 15 footnotes, most likely for the purpose of complying with the Court’s page limits. See, e.g., id. at 16 17, 19, 21, 22, 27, 29, 30, 32. 17 The Court has previously declined to consider arguments contained in footnotes. E.g., 18 Cheever v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., No. 18-CV-06715-JST, 2019 WL 8883942, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 19 Dec. 4, 2019). “Arguments raised only in footnotes, or only on reply, are generally deemed 20 waived” and need not be considered. Estate of Saunders v. Comm’r, 745 F.3d 953, 962 n.8 (9th 21 Cir. 2014); see Sanders v. Sodexo, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00371-JAD-GWF, 2015 WL…