United States of America v. Warner

Filing 46

ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 40 the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment, (2) DIRECTING the parties to submit a joint statement of undisputed facts, and (3) CONTINUING dates. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 2/8/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California 10 San Francisco Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. PAUL J. WARNER, 15 Defendant. No. C 11-04181 LB ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (2) DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT A JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS, AND (3) CONTINUING DATES 16 [Re: ECF No. 40] 17 18 _____________________________________/ Plaintiff United States of America (the “Government”) sued defendant Paul Warner, who is 19 proceeding pro se, alleging that Mr. Warner defaulted on student loans that are guaranteed by and 20 assigned to the United States. Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 1.1 On January 31, 2013, the Government 21 filed a motion for summary judgment. Motion, ECF No. 40. What was not filed, though, was a joint 22 statement of undisputed facts, which is required by the undersigned’s standing order. The standing 23 order, which is available on the court’s website and also is attached to this order, provides: 24 25 11. Motions for summary judgment shall be accompanied by a joint statement of the material facts that the parties agree are not in dispute. The joint statement shall include – for each undisputed fact – citations to admissible evidence. The parties shall comply with the procedures set forth in Civil Local Rule 56-2(b). The parties 26 27 1 28 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom. C 11-04181 LB ORDER may not file – and the Court will not consider – separate statements of undisputed facts. Failure to stipulate to an undisputed fact without a reasonable basis for doing so may result in sanctions. See Civil L. R. 56-2(b). 1 2 3 Standing Order for United States Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler (effective January 4, 2013) at 4 4 (Section E, titled “Summary Judgment Motions”), available at http://cand.uscourts.gov/lborders 5 (emphasis added). For this reason alone, the court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the 6 Government’s motion. The Government may file another motion for summary judgment after the 7 parties file a joint statement of undisputed facts. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the 8 joint statement of undisputed facts by February 18, 2013, and they shall file the joint statement of 9 undisputed fact no later than February 21, 2013. The Government shall file any new motion for summary judgment no later than February 21, 2013, and the motion shall be noticed for hearing on 11 April 4, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 As the court assumes that the parties will file a joint statement of undisputed facts and that the 13 Government will file a new motion for summary judgment, the court notes that, although the 14 Government did provide at least a partial version of the facts, see Motion, ECF No. 40 at 3-8, 15 Government stated, “For a more complete statements of the facts, the Court is directed to the 16 Declaration of Rubio Canlas in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (CANLAS 17 DEC., hereafter), filed herewith,” id. at 2-3. Given that it is it is the moving party’s ultimate burden 18 to persuad the court that there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is 19 entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), and also that the court “is not 20 obligated to consider matters not specifically brought to its attention,” see Schwarzer, Tashima & 21 Wagstaffe, Cal. Prac. Guide: Fed. Civ. Proc. Before Trial § 14.145.2 (Rutter Group 2013), the court 22 instructs the Government to include in the fact section of its motion all of the facts it wants the court 23 to be aware of. To allow a party to simply refer to additional facts set forth in a declaration would 24 allow that party to circumvent the page limitations that apply to motions. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7- 25 2(b). 26 27 In light of this order, the court CONTINUES the remaining dates, including the trial date, as follows: 28 C 11-04181 LB ORDER 2 1 2 Case Event Filing Date/Disclosure Deadline/Hearing Date 3 Last hearing date for dispositive motions and/or further case management conference 4/4/2013, at 11:00 a.m. 4 Meet and confer re pretrial filings 4/30/2013 5 Pretrial filings due 5/9/2013 6 Oppositions, Objections, Exhibits, and Depo Designations due 5/16/2013 7 Final Pretrial Conference 5/30/2013, at 10:30 a.m. Trial 6/10/2013, at 8:30 a.m. Length of Trial 1 day 8 9 10 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 8, 2013 _______________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C 11-04181 LB ORDER 3

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?