Frost v. Cate et al

Filing 41

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 36 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 38 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment Responses due by 2/7/2014. Replies due by 3/7/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2014)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 SHAWN KEVIN FROST, SR., 5 6 7 No. C 12-5226 YGR (PR) Plaintiff, vs. MATTHEW CATE, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 / ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THEIR REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND DIRECTING THEM TO FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 This is a federal civil rights action. Defendants' motion to dismiss on grounds that Plaintiff 12 has failed to state claims for relief (Docket No. 36) is DENIED. Plaintiff's allegations, when 13 liberally construed, appear to state claims for relief. Defendants' grounds for dismissal are more 14 properly raised in a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Defendants shall file a motion for 15 summary judgment within sixty (60) days from the date this Order is filed. Plaintiff's opposition to 16 the motion for summary judgment shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendants no later 17 than sixty (60) days after the date on which Defendants' motion is filed. Defendants shall file a 18 reply brief no later than twenty-eight (28) days after the date Plaintiff's opposition is filed. 19 Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be granted. Any motion for 20 an extension of time must be filed no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the deadline sought to be 21 extended. 22 Defendants are reminded that a motion for summary judgment must be accompanied by a 23 Rand1 notice so that Plaintiff will have fair, timely and adequate notice of what is required of him in 24 order to oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice requirement 25 set out in Rand must be served concurrently with motion for summary judgment). Defendants shall 26 provide the following notice to Plaintiff when they file and serve any motion for summary 27 28 1 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 judgment: The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by which they seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact -- that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendants' declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. Rand, 154 F.3d at 962-63. Also before the Court is Defendants' motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's 13 pending motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 12), which was filed before Defendants 14 appeared in this action. Defendants request an extension of time up to and including sixty days from 15 the date the Court issues an Order resolving their motion to dismiss. As explained above, the Court 16 has denied Defendants' pending motion to dismiss. The Court finds that only a brief extension of 17 time -- as opposed to a sixty-day extension -- is warranted. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part 18 and DENIES in part Defendants' motion for an extension of time (Docket No. 38). Defendants shall 19 respond to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment no later than February 7, 2014. Plaintiff may 20 file a reply brief no later than March 7, 2014. 21 The Clerk of the Court shall terminate Docket Nos. 36 and 38. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 DATED: January 3, 2014 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 G:\PRO-SE\YGR\CR.12\Frost5226.denyMTD(ftsc).wpd 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?