Cortemanche v. Merriweather et al
Filing
21
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 5/13/14 ORDERING that within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to defendants motion for summary judgment. (Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CHARLES CORTEMANCHE,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:12-cv-2788 AC P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
B. MERRIWEATHER, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
On April 3, 2014, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.
Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written
20
opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to
21
the granting of the motion . . . .” By Order, ECF No. 11, filed on June 27, 2013, plaintiff was
22
advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose such
23
a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d
24
952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999); Klingele v. Eikenberry,
25
849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988). In addition, defendants provided the concurrent Rand notice, ECF
26
No. 18-4, required by Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012), setting forth the
27
requirements to oppose a motion for summary judgment.
28
Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for
1
1
imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of
2
the Court.” In the order filed June 27, 2013, plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the
3
Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. The Ninth Circuit has
4
recently held that a district court is prohibited from granting a summary judgment motion solely
5
based on a failure to oppose the motion notwithstanding any local rule suggesting otherwise.
6
Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F. 3d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 2013). Nevertheless, a “failure to respond
7
to a fact asserted in the motion permits a court to ‘consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the
8
motion.’” Id. at 917 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2)).
9
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days of the date of
10
this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
11
Failure to file an opposition, properly addressing defendants’ assertions of fact, will result in the
12
facts asserted by the motion to be considered by the court as undisputed for purposes of
13
adjudicating the motion.
14
DATED: May 13, 2014
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?