Victoria Urenia et al v. Public Storage et al

Filing 218

ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: DENYING PLAINTIFFS VARIOUS REQUESTS 212 , 216 , 217 . The Court therefore DENIES the request to withdraw Dkt. No.270-2 as moot and DENIES the requests to have declarants present for examination, because Local Rule 7-8 does not apply to summary judgment motions. (shb)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

VICTORIA URENIA, an
individual; SOLEDAD CORONA,
an individual,

13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiffs,
v.
PUBLIC STORAGE, a real
estate investment trust;
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a
governmental entity; BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A.; MICHAEL ANZ,
Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 13-01934 DDP (AJWx)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ VARIOUS
REQUESTS
[Dkt. Nos. 212, 216, 217]

19
20

Plaintiffs have recently filed several documents with the

21

Court.

22

appears to have been filed in error – it is the signature page for

23

a declaration, but the declaration itself is missing.

24

212 (“request to withdraw” Dkt. No. 207-2).)

25

procedurally irregular – a party wishing the Court to strike a

26

document may file a noticed motion or an ex parte application – the

27

request is unnecessary.

28

declaration was subsequently (and timely) filed with the Court,

First, there is a “request” to withdraw a document that

(Dkt. No.

Apart from being

As Plaintiffs’ document notes, the entire

1
2

(Dkt. No. 211), and 207-2 is not likely to cause confusion.
Plaintiffs have also filed notices of requests under Local

3

Rule 7-8 for Defendants’ declarants to appear to be examined at the

4

hearings on the parties’ motions for summary judgment.

5

216, 217.)

6

“motions for and orders to show cause re preliminary injunctions,

7

motions to be relieved from default and other motions where an

8

issue of fact is to be determined.”

9

motion for summary judgment, on the other hand, is a motion for

(Dkt. Nos.

The rule Plaintiffs invoke, however, applies only to

Id. (emphasis added).

A

10

judgment as to legal questions based on the portions of the factual

11

record as to which there is no genuine dispute.

12

56(a).

13

U.S., No. SACV 13-00594-CJC, 2014 WL 4948625, at *1, n.2 (C.D. Cal.

14

Sept. 8, 2014); Coastal Delivery Corp. v. U.S. Customs Serv., 272

15

F. Supp. 2d 958, 961 (C.D. Cal. 2003).

Thus, Local Rule 7-8 does not apply.

Fed. R. Civ. P.

Gorski v. I.R.S. of

16

The Court therefore DENIES the request to withdraw Dkt. No.

17

270-2 as moot and DENIES the requests to have declarants present

18

for examination, because Local Rule 7-8 does not apply to summary

19

judgment motions.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated: July 16, 2015
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2