Stewart v. Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford

Filing 68

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/13/2020 Plaintiff shall file opposition to the motion for summary judgment, or a statement of non-opposition on or before 9/17/2020. Defendant may file a written reply to plaintiff's opposition on or before 9/24/2020. Thereafter, the court will take this matter under submission without a hearing. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
Case 2:17-cv-02418-TLN-KJN Document 68 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COLLEEN STEWART, 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, No. 2:17–cv–2418–TLN–KJN PS ORDER v. PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. OF HARTFORD, Defendant. On June 19, 2020, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and a hearing on this 18 motion was ultimately set for August 13, 2020. (ECF Nos. 61, 63.) Plaintiff failed to file 19 opposition to this motion, and so the court vacated the hearing and, given her pro se status, 20 provided her with additional time to respond. (ECF No. 64.) Simultaneously, plaintiff mailed to 21 the court a motion to continue, requesting an additional six months to prepare her case before the 22 summary judgment motion is taken up. (ECF No. 65.) Defendant opposed, noting plaintiff has 23 previously requested multiple extensions throughout the case, and noting she has known about 24 her prior attorney’s intent to withdraw since April 2019. (ECF No. 66.) 25 Given plaintiffs’ pro se status and the overlap between the court’s order and plaintiff’s 26 request, the court grants plaintiff a brief extension to prepare her opposition to defendant’s motion 27 for summary judgment. However, an extension of the length plaintiff requests cannot be granted. 28 Defendant is correct that plaintiff’s attorney moved to withdraw over a year and a half ago, and 1 Case 2:17-cv-02418-TLN-KJN Document 68 Filed 08/14/20 Page 2 of 2 1 plaintiff has known about defendant’s summary judgment motion since it was filed on June 19, 2 2020. The court sympathizes with plaintiff’s personal issues, but notes that plaintiff brought her 3 case in 2017 and has delayed it multiple times. Thus, plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion is now due by September 17, 2020.1 4 5 Defendant’s reply is due September 24, 2020, and the motion will be taken under submission 6 without a hearing after this date. Plaintiff should observe Local Rule 260 regarding her 7 opposition to the motion for summary judgment.2 Any further failure by plaintiff to oppose will 8 be construed as non-opposition to defendant’s motion, and no further extensions of time will be 9 granted on this motion. 10 ORDER 11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Plaintiff shall file a written opposition to the motion for summary judgment, or a 13 statement of non-opposition thereto, on or before September 17, 2020. No further 14 extensions will be granted. Plaintiff’s failure to file a written opposition will be 15 deemed a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion and consent to the 16 granting of the motion, and may constitute an additional ground for the imposition 17 of appropriate sanctions; and 18 2. Defendant may file a written reply to plaintiff’s opposition on or before September 19 24, 2020. Thereafter, the court will take this matter under submission without a 20 hearing. 21 Dated: August 13, 2020 22 stew.2418 23 24 1 25 26 27 28 Given the court is under restricted access due to the current health crisis (See General Order 612), plaintiff may submit her filing by mail. Should plaintiff wish to submit her opposition in person at the court, she is advised to bring a copy of this order with her—as the current general order restricts public access to the facilities. The Local Rules of the Eastern District of California are available on the court’s website, at 2 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?