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)
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?