Cygnus Systems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, et al

Filing 320

Cygnus Systems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, et al

Doc. 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Sean D. Garrison (No. 014436) Bruce E. Samuels (No. 015996) Christy L.E. Hubbard (No. 019827) 40 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4429 Facsimile No.: [phone] Telephone: [phone] Email: [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff Arizona Opera Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Arizona Opera Company, an Arizona non- ) profit corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) AZ Opera Company, an Arizona non-profit ) corporation, and John Massaro and Gail ) Massaro, husband and wife, ) ) Defendants. ) )

No. CV 06-988-PHX-JAT PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.2(i)

Pursuant to Local Rule LRCiv7.2(i), plaintiff Arizona Opera Company requests that the Court enter an order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment because Defendants have not filed any opposition in the time allowed under LRCiv 56.1. On March 5, 2007, plaintiff filed and served a motion for summary judgment against all defendants. See Docket No. 42. This motion was supported by plaintiff's

separate statement of facts, the declaration of David Bolger, testimony from the preliminary injunction hearing, and numerous exhibits. Id. Local Rule LRCiv 56.1(d) states that any party opposing a summary judgment motion "shall, unless otherwise

1824975.1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

ordered by the Court, have thirty (30) days after service within which to serve and file a responsive memorandum in opposition." Defendants did not seek, and the Court has not granted, any extension of time to oppose Plaintiff's motion. Accordingly, Defendants were required to file any opposition to the motion by no later than April 9, 2007. 1 Despite being served with the motion and supporting papers, Defendants have filed no opposition. Pursuant to Local Rule LRCiv 7.2(i), Defendants' failure to file and serve a timely opposition "may be deemed a consent to ... the granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily." Plaintiff requests that the Court do so in this case and grant Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. DATED this 10th day of April, 2007. LEWIS AND ROCA LLP

By

/s/ Sean Garrison Sean D. Garrison Bruce E. Samuels Christy L.E. Hubbard

Attorneys for Plaintiff Arizona Opera Company

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e) provided Defendants with an additional 3 days to file and serve an opposing memorandum because the motion was served on them by First Class Mail. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) provides that whenever the last day of a response period falls on a weekend day, the response period is extended until the end of the next court day (in this case, Monday, April 9, 2007.

2

1824975.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 10, 2007, I electronically transmitted the attached document entitled PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.2(i) to the Clerk's office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following persons who have registered to receive electronic notice of filings through the CM/ECF system: Gordon S. Bueler ([e-mail]) Attorney for Defendants

/s/ Sean D. Garrison
An Employee of Lewis and Roca LLP

3

1824975.1