Hernandez v. Rash Curtis & Associates

Filing 28

STANDING ORDER re Summary Judgment Motions signed by District Judge George H. Wu on 9/20/17. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 9 Marlena Hernandez, Plaintiff(s), 10 v. 11 12 Rash Curtis & Associates, Defendant(s). 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:16-cv-02455-GHW Standing Order Re Summary Judgment Motions You are instructed to read and to follow the requirements in Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Central District of California Local Rules 56-1 through 56-3. 2. A moving party who files a reply/response to an opposition to a motion for summary judgment (where the opposing party has filed a “Statement of Genuine Disputes”) shall file a “Response to Statement of Genuine Disputes” using the format delineated below. Said Response will include each initially designated uncontroverted fact (and supporting evidence), and, if the opposing party has raised a dispute to the moving party’s fact, the moving party’s response (and any supporting evidence) to rebut the opposing party’s contentions. For example: Moving Party’s Uncontroverted Facts and Supporting Evidence Opposing Party’s Response to Cited Fact and Supporting Evidence 1. The accident occurred on June 1, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. 1. Undisputed 24 25 26 27 28 Evidence: Deposition of Defendant at page 5; Declaration of Witness A at ¶ 3. 1 2 3 4 5 2. The signal light was green in Defendant’s direction when she entered into the intersection and immediately before Plaintiff’s vehicle “ran” the red light and struck Defendant’s truck. 2. Disputed. Immediately before the accident, the light was green in Plaintiff’s direction and Defendant ran the red light. Evidence: 6/8/13 Deposition of Plaintiff at page 10. Evidence: 6/3/13 Deposition of Defendant at page 6. 6 2. Moving Party’s Response 7 On Page 10 of his deposition, Plaintiff merely states that he “believes” the light was green when he drove into the intersection. Also, on page 12, he admits that he had consumed ten bottles of beer within one hour before the accident. Further, in the police report prepared at the scene by Officer Green within one half hour of the accident, Plaintiff admitted that he couldn’t recall if the light was green when he entered into the intersection. See page 3 of Police Report No. A473501, attached as exhibit 101 to Defendant’s 6/3/13 Deposition. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 3. Any evidentiary objections to materials filed in connection with summary judgment motions (for which a party desires the Court to specifically make a ruling) shall be delineated in a separate document (or documents) entitled "Request for Evidentiary Ruling on Specified Objections." Each objection shall: (1) cite to the evidentiary item and state its precise location by document name and Docket Number plus the page and line(s) where it appears, and (2) concisely articulate the bases for the objection(s). Objections will only be raised as to evidence (not to factual statements or factual characterizations in the opposing party's brief(s)). The Court will disregard any evidentiary objection(s) that do not comply with this instruction. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 DATED: September 20, 2017 GEORGE H. WU United States District Judge 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?