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)

Download PDF
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

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?