Jorge Avila v. City of Santa Monica et al

Filing 29

ORDER RE. DEFICIENT STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 27 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Defendants are ORDERED to file an amended STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS with the Court no later than Friday, March 14, 2014. Further failure to comply with the Local Rules may subject the parties to sanctions within this Courts discretion. L.R. 83-7. (lc). Modified on 3/12/2014. (lc).

O

1
2
3

United States District Court
Central District of California

4
5
6
7

JORGE AVILA,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11
12
13

Case No. 2:13-cv-03570-ODW(JCGx)

v.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA, SCOTT
MATSUDA, GEORGE MENDEZ,
SCOTT McGOWAN, MARILYN
AMIACHE and Does 1-10, inclusive,

14

ORDER RE. DEFICIENT
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [27]

Defendants.

15
16
17

On March 3, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Jorge

18

Avila’s claims for negligence and municipal liability. (ECF No. 27.) Defendants’

19

proffered statement of undisputed facts (SUF) is grossly deficient. Local Rule 56-1

20

provides in relevant part,

21

A party filing a notice of motion for summary judgment or partial

22

summary judgment shall lodge a proposed “Statement of Uncontroverted

23

Facts and Conclusions of Law.” Such proposed statement shall set forth

24

the material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no

25

genuine dispute.

26

(emphasis added).

27

Defendants’ proffered SUF provides no material facts at all. Plaintiff Jorge

28

Avila’s opposing SUF outlines in detail the altercation between Avila and Defendant

1

Officer Matsuda. (ECF No. 28.) In contrast, Defendants paltry eight “facts” merely

2

iterate unsubstantiated legal conclusions regarding Defendants’ liability. For example,

3

Defendants’ SUF number 6 states “Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead a Monell

4

Claim against the City in his Fourth Cause of Action.” (ECF No. 27.) This is not

5

what the local rules envision. Defendants are required by the local rules to provide the

6

court with a proposed statement of uncontroverted facts.

7

Accordingly, Defendants are ORDERED to file an amended SUF with the

8

Court no later than Friday, March 14, 2014. Further failure to comply with the Local

9

Rules may subject the parties to sanctions within this Court’s discretion. L.R. 83-7.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

March 12, 2014

13
14
15

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2