McInerney v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 41

ORDER RESETTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND RAND NOTICE. Motion Hearing set for 8/6/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 6/15/10. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants. / This matter is currently set for a hearing on July 2, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, to Dismiss Unserved Defendants, and for Judgment on the Pleadings. Defendants have moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, for summary judgment on the ground that there is no genuine dispute regarding any material issue of fact. Having not received a timely opposition brief to the motion from Plaintiff, Joseph McInerney ("McInerney") the Court HEREBY VACATES the hearing date and RESETS the hearing for August 6, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. The Initial Case Management Conference set for that date is VACATED. McInerney has an obligation to file an opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment and failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this case with prejudice. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end Plaintiff's case. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-54 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). A principal purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to identify and dispose of factually supported claims. See Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). In order to IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOSEPH MCINERNEY, Plaintiff, No. C 09-00430 JSW ORDER RESETTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND RAND NOTICE

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

withstand a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact in dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In the absence of such facts, "the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp., 477 at 323. In opposing summary judgment, McInerney is not entitled to rely on the allegations of his complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); cf. S. A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines) v. Walter Kidde & Co., 690 F.2d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 1982) (stating that "a party cannot manufacture a genuine issue of material fact merely by making assertions in its legal memoranda"). Rather, McInerney's response must set forth specific facts supported by admissible evidence, i.e., affidavits or certified deposition testimony, showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See id.; see also Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Richards v. Combined Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1995), and stating that it is not a district court's task to "scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact"). If summary judgment is granted, McInerney's case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. See Rand, 154 F.3d at 953-54. Accordingly, McInerney has until Friday, July 9, 2010, to file an opposition to Defendants' motion. Defendants may file a reply brief no later than July 16, 2010. If no opposition is filed, summary judgment may be granted. If summary judgment is granted, McInerney's case will be dismissed. If Plaintiff McInerney files an opposition, and if the Court determines that the matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument, it will so advise the parties in advance of the hearing date. // // // //

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

If the parties wish to modify this schedule, they may submit for the Court's consideration a stipulation and proposed order demonstrating good cause for any modification requested. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 15, 2010 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 JOSEPH MCINERNEY, Plaintiff, v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case Number: CV09-00430 JSW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

SF CITY & COUNTY et al, Defendant. /

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on June 15, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Joseph McInerney P.O. Box 2625 San Jose, CA 95113 Dated: June 15, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

4