Smith v. Lim-Javate et al

Filing 16

ORDER 11 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/9/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTHONY SMITH, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 16-cv-01278-SI ORDER v. Re: Dkt. No. 11 ROSANA LIM-JAVATE, et al., Defendants. 12 13 The order of service stated that any motion for summary judgment stated that, if 14 defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, they “must provide to plaintiff a new Rand notice 15 regarding summary judgment procedures at the time they file such a motion. See Woods v. Carey, 684 16 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012).” Docket No. 3 at 3; see Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 17 2012). Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was not accompanied by a proper Rand notice. 18 Although a paragraph in the motion includes the information required by Rand (see Docket No. 11 19 at 5-6), that does not fully satisfy Rand because Rand also requires that the notice “be in a 20 separate form that the plaintiff will recognize as given pursuant to the court’s requirement. It may 21 not be provided within the summary judgment motion or in the papers ordinarily filed in support 22 of the motion.” Rand, 154 F.3d at 960 (emphasis added). Meticulous compliance with the Rand 23 notice requirement is necessary. 24 requirement continues to be a quick route to reversal if a motion for summary judgment is granted. 25 See, e.g., Nelson v. Peck, 2016 WL 6892509 (9th Cir. Nov. 23, 2016) (provision of Rand notice at 26 outset of case but not concurrently with the motion for summary judgment was reversible error). 27 To avoid the possibility of such a reversal, defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket 28 No. 11) is DENIED for failure to provide the Rand notice in a separate document. The denial of The failure to comply with the Rand and Woods notice 1 the motion for summary judgment is without prejudice to defendants filing a new motion for 2 summary judgment that is accompanied by a Rand notice. 3 The court now sets the following briefing schedule for the new motion for summary 4 judgment: Defendants must file and serve a new motion for summary judgment with a Rand 5 notice no later than March 24, 2017. Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition to the new 6 motion for summary judgment no later than April 21, 2017. Defendants must file and serve their 7 reply (if any) no later than May 5, 2017. 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 9, 2017 ______________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?