Begin your motions well

Stop opening your motions with virtual boilerplate about what the motion is and who is filing it. Get to the point. Here is a real motion opener (names have been changed) and a revision.

Original

RESPONSE OF FAQ OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND RUTTER, LLC TO MOTION OF HENRY H. HINEMAN FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
Plaintiffs, FAQ Operating Limited Partnership ("FAQ") and Rutter LLC ("Rutter"), by their attorneys, Amber T. Green, Sanjay Adeep, and David P. Hurst, state as follows in response to Defendant Henry H. Hineman's ("Hineman") motion for stay pending appeal:

. . .
Revised

FAQ and Rutter's Response to
Hineman's Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
Hineman, believing he can succeed on appeal to the district court, seeks to stay the effect of the remand orders this bankruptcy court entered on February 25. But Hineman is incorrect in his analysis under Bankruptcy Rule 8005 and is unlikely to prevail on appeal for four reasons:

1. He has not met and cannot meet the "strong showing" of likely success required as a threshold inquiry under Rule 8005;
2. He cannot show that he will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay;
3. A stay could substantially harm other parties in the litigation; and
4. He cannot show that a stay is in the public interest.

Hineman fails on all counts, and the request for stay should be denied.

. . .
For further reading, see Beverly Ray Burlingame, On Beginning a Court Paper, 6 Scribes J. Leg. Writing 160 (1997).