Hart v. PAE Government Services Incorporated
Filing
40
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/11/11 DENYING pltf's 38 Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice. (Manzer, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JOHN HENRY HART,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
No. CIV S-10-1672 FCD EFB PS
vs.
PAE GOVERNMENT SERVICES
INCORPORATED,
14
Defendant.
16
ORDER
/
15
This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to
17
Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On July 5,
18
2011, plaintiff filed his third motion for summary judgment in this action.1 Dckt. No. 22.
19
However, once again, plaintiff’s summary judgment motion does not comply with the
20
requirements set forth in Local Rules 230(b) and 260(a), in that it was not noticed for hearing,
21
does not contain any supporting authority or evidence, and was not accompanied by a Statement
22
of Undisputed Facts. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(b) (“[A]ll motions shall be noticed on the motion
23
calendar of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge. The moving party shall file with the Clerk a
24
25
26
1
Plaintiff also filed motions for summary judgment on October 12, 2010 and March 1,
2011, which were denied without prejudice as premature and procedurally improper. Dckt. Nos.
6, 7, 22, 24.
1
1
notice of motion, motion, accompanying briefs, affidavits, if appropriate, and copies of all
2
documentary evidence that the moving party intends to submit in support of the motion.”);
3
260(a) (“Each motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication shall be accompanied by
4
a ‘Statement of Undisputed Facts’ that shall enumerate discretely each of the specific material
5
facts relied upon in support of the motion and cite the particular portions of any pleading,
6
affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer, admission or other document relied upon to establish
7
that fact.”).
8
Further, once again, the motion fails to indicate why or how plaintiff is entitled to
9
summary judgment and is nearly unintelligible. A party seeking summary judgment bears the
10
responsibility of informing the district court and the opposing party of the specified ground for
11
its motion. Katz v. Children’s Hosp. of Orange County, 28 F.3d 1520, 1534 (9th Cir. 1994).
12
Finally, it appears plaintiff’s motion is still premature since the court recently granted
13
defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff’s deposition and responses to document requests, in
14
which defendant indicated that plaintiff has not appeared for his deposition and has not
15
responded to any of defendant’s discovery requests.2 Dckt. No. 33. Although the court has
16
construed plaintiff’s objections to that order as a motion for reconsideration, which will be heard
17
on August 3, 2011, it is apparent that defendant has not yet been able to complete discovery in
18
this action. See Dckt. No. 23 at 2 (citing Portland Retail Druggists Ass’n v. Kaiser Found.
19
Health Plan, 662 F.2d 641, 645 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Martinez v. Whitman, 2010 WL
20
475347, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2010) (citing Portsmouth Square, Inc., v. Shareholders
21
Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 1985) (“The case must be sufficiently advanced
22
in terms of pretrial discovery for the summary judgment target to know what evidence likely can
23
be mustered and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present such evidence.”).
24
25
26
2
Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion also appears to include a request that he not have
to appear for his deposition. Dckt. No. 38 at 2. However, because that request is procedurally
improper and plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to such relief, the request is denied.
2
1
2
3
4
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, Dckt. No. 38, is denied without
prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 11, 2011.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?