Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. EEE Business Inc. et al

Filing 37

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 9/24/09. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. EEE BUSINESS INC., ET AL., Defendants. / ORDER SETTING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE No. C 09-01888 JSW 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 On September 22, 2009, Plaintiff Hartford Casualty Insurance Company filed and properly served a motion for summary judgment and set a hearing for November 6, 2009. Due to the Court's calendar, the hearing is CONTINUED to November 13, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. The case management, set for November 13, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. shall be held instead at 9:00 a.m., immediately following the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. The Court further ORDERS that opposition to the motion shall be filed by no later than October 13, 2009 and a reply brief shall be filed by no later than October 20, 2009. Defendants have an obligation to file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion and failure to do so may result in the entry of judgment. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, result in the entry of judgment. 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 withstand a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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, Defendants are not entitled to rely on legal argument. 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, Defendant'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 in full, Plaintiff's case will result in entry of judgment and there will be no trial. See Rand, 154 F.3d at 953-54. 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. 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. Plaintiff shall serve all Defendants with a copy of this order and proof of such service with the Court by no later than September 29, 2009. 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 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 24, 2009 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?