Velasquez v. Donahue et al

Filing 72

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON 70 MOTION for Summary Judgment; AND PROVIDING RAND NOTICE. Responses due by 6/21/2013. Replies due by 6/28/2013. Motion Hearing set for 8/16/2013 09:00 AM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jeffrey S. White.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 6/6/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

RODOLFO VELASQUEZ,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,

No. C 11-03444 JSW

v.
PATRICK R. DONAHUE, et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING
ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND PROVIDING
RAND NOTICE

14
15
16

On May 17, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal

17

Rule of Civil Procedure 56, which is noticed for a hearing on June 21, 2013. Under Northern

18

District Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion was due by no later than May 31,

19

2013. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition brief.

20

Plaintiff has an obligation to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary

21

judgment and failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this case with prejudice. A motion

22

for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted,

23

end Plaintiff’s case. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-54 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). A

24

principal purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to identify and dispose of factually

25

supported claims. See Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). In order to

26
27
28

1

withstand a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must set forth specific

2

facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact in dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). A

3

dispute about a material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could

4

return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

5

(1986). In the absence of such facts, “the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of

6

law.” Celotex Corp., 477 at 323.

complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); cf. S. A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig

9

Airlines) v. Walter Kidde & Co., 690 F.2d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 1982) (stating that “a party

10

cannot manufacture a genuine issue of material fact merely by making assertions in its legal

11
For the Northern District of California

In opposing summary judgment, Plaintiff is not entitled to rely on the allegations of his

8

United States District Court

7

memoranda”). Rather, his response must set forth specific facts supported by admissible

12

evidence, i.e., affidavits or certified deposition testimony, showing that there is a genuine issue

13

for trial. See id.; see also Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting

14

Richards v. Combined Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1995), and stating that it is not a

15

district court’s task to “scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact”). If

16

summary judgment is granted, Plaintiff’s case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. See

17

Rand, 154 F.3d at 953-54.

18

Accordingly, the Court is providing Plaintiff until Friday, June 21, 2013, to file an

19

opposition to Defendants’ motion. Defendants may file a reply brief no later than June 28,

20

2013. The Court HEREBY CONTINUES the hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary

21

judgment to August 16, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. If no opposition is filed, summary judgment may be

22

granted and Plaintiff’s case will be dismissed. If Plaintiff files an opposition, and if the Court

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

determines that the matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument, it will so advise the

2

parties in advance of the hearing date.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: June 6, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
RODOLFO VELASQUEZ,

Case Number: CV11-03444 JSW

6
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
v.
8
PATRICK R. DONAHUE et al,
9
Defendant.

/

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
12 District Court, Northern District of California.
13 That on June 6, 2013, 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
14 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.
15
16

Rodolfo Velasquez
17 426 Idora Avenue
Vallejo, CA 94591
18
Dated: June 6, 2013
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk