Robison v. City of Santa Rosa et al

Filing 33

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Re Briefing Schedule for 14 Defendants' Motion to Stay; and Denying 25 26 Plaintiff's Motions to Strike. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ELDRICK E. ROBISON,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-13-2443 EMC

CITY OF SANTA ROSA, et al.,

12

Defendants.
___________________________________/

ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE
FOR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
STAY; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO STRIKE
(Docket Nos. 14, 25, 26)

13
14
15

Plaintiff filed the instant suit on March 30, 2013, bringing two causes of action in connection

16

with a dispute over the ownership of a property located at 1070 S. Wright Road in Santa Rosa,

17

California. Docket No. 1. Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion requesting that

18

the Court stay the instant matter for 60 days or until the court issues an order directing Plaintiff to

19

show cause why this matter should not be dismissed. Docket No. 14. Defendants note that Plaintiff

20

had been declared a vexatious litigant in California Superior Court, and argue that the instant suit is

21

frivolous. In particular, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has no interest in the subject property

22

because the individual who allegedly deeded him the property did not own it at any relevant time. In

23

support of its motion, Defendants attach various documents documenting the chain of title for the

24

subject property. Docket No. 16.

25

As Defendants’ motion attaches evidence outside the pleadings and argues that Plaintiff’s

26

case cannot succeed on the merits, this Court treats the motion as a motion for summary judgment

27

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) (providing that a court may construe a Rule

28

12 motion as a motion for summary judgment when it raises matters outside the pleadings).

1
2

Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing currently set for August 29, 2013 and sets the
following briefing schedule:

3
4

1.

By no later than August 27, 2013, Defendants may submit any additional evidence in

5

support of the motion for summary judgment, as well as any additional briefing not to

6

exceed five pages.

7

2.

By no later than September 10, 2013, Plaintiff shall file his opposition to the motion

8

for summary judgment, along with any evidence he wishes the Court to consider,

9

consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
3.

Defendants may file any reply by no later than September 17, 2013.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

4.

The motion for summary judgment will be heard at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, October

12

3, 2013.

13
14

Plaintiff is advised that summary judgment may be granted “against a party who fails to

15

make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and

16

on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial . . . since a complete failure of proof

17

concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts

18

immaterial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986); see also Anderson v. Liberty

19

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (a fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit

20

under governing law, and a dispute about a material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a

21

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”). Thus, while Defendants will bear

22

the initial burden of identifying those portions of the record which demonstrate the absence of a

23

genuine issue of material fact, should they do so, the burden then shifts to Plaintiff to introduce

24

evidence indicating that there is a genuine issue for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (citations

25

omitted.).

26

Plaintiff has also filed two motions to strike Defendant’s motion to stay, arguing that the stay

27

and supporting documentation constitute scandalous material irrelevant to the merits of this case.

28

Docket Nos. 25, 26. In light of the above ruling, Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED.

2

1

For Plaintiff’s benefit, the Court directs his attention to the Handbook for Pro Se Litigants,

2

which is available along with further information for the parties on the Court’s website located at

3

http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. Plaintiff may also contact the Legal Help Center, 450

4

Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, Telephone No. (415) 782–8982, for free legal advice

5

regarding his claims.

6

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 25 and 26.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: August 20, 2013

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

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

3