Mendoza v. Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc. et al

Filing 51

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUPPORTING PAPERS. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 5/4/12. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2012)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

CARLITO MENDOZA,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10
11

vs.

Case No.: C-11-00666-YGR
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUPPORTING
PAPERS

KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

Plaintiff filed his Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the
Alternative, Summary Adjudication and supporting papers on April 24, 2012. (Dkt. Nos. 42–47.)
Plaintiff’s Opposition papers fail to comply with this Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases
(“Standing Order”) and the Civil Local Rules in a number of respects.
With respect to Dkt. No. 44 (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Summary
Adjudication (“Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts”)), the Court’s Standing Order permits an
opposing separate statement “no more than five (5) additional pages beyond the number of pages in
the opening statement.” Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts exceeds five pages.
Plaintiff may file an amended Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in support of his Opposition by
Monday, May 7, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. that reduces the document length down to five pages or less. The
amended document may not contain any new facts and shall consist of only facts previously stated. If
Plaintiff does not file an amended Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts by May 7 at 5:00 p.m., the
Court will STRIKE pages 7–9 of the previously filed Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts at Dkt.
No. 44. Any claimed undisputed facts contained within those pages will not be considered by the

1

Court. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to provide the attestation required in the Standing

2

Order at Section 9(c). Counsel is ORDERED to file an attestation with the amended Separate

3

Statement of Undisputed Facts in compliance with the Standing Order by Monday, May 7, 2012 at

4

5:00 p.m. If no such amended document is filed, counsel shall file an attestation as to the previous

5

document.

6

With respect to Dkt. No. 45 (Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Separate Statement of

7

Undisputed Facts in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

8

or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication), Plaintiff’s counsel has again failed to provide the

9

required attestation referenced above. Counsel is ORDERED to file an attestation with regard to this

10
11

document by Monday, May 7, 2012 at 5:00 p.m.
With respect to Dkt. No. 46 (Plaintiff’s Objections to Evidence in Support of Plaintiff’s

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Summary

13

Adjudication), the Court hereby STRIKES this document for failure to comply with Civil Local Rule

14

7-3. The Local Rule, which applies to oppositions and replies to a motion, requires that “[a]ny

15

evidentiary and procedural objections to the motion must be contained within the brief or

16

memorandum.” As such, the Court will not respond to the objections raised therein.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: May 4, 2012

_______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2