Thibodeau v. ADT Security Services
Filing
57
ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Opposition Brief ( 49 ); Resetting Briefing Schedule; and Denying as Moot Plaintiff's 47 Motion to Quash. The Court hereby strikes Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summa ry Judgment (Dkt. No. 55). Plaintiff shall file any amended opposition brief no later than Friday, December 1, 2017. Defendant shall file any reply to an amended opposition no later than Friday, December 15, 2017. The Court continues the hearing set for December 8, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. That hearing is now scheduled for January 19, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2D. The Court denies as moot Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Defendant's Service of Summons (Dkt. No. 47 ). Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 11/6/17. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
CLAYTON DEL THIBODEAU,
Case No.: 3:16-cv-02680-GPC-AGS
Plaintiff,
11
12
v.
13
ORDER:
ADT LLC, d/b/a ADT SECURITY
SERVICES, a/k/a/ ADT HOLDINGS,
INC.,
14
15
(1) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
FILE AMENDED OPPOSITION
BRIEF [DKT. No. 49.]
Defendant.
(2) RESETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE
[DKT. No. 48.]
16
17
18
(3) DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH
[DKT. NO. 47]
19
20
21
On September 21, 2017, Defendant ADT LLC, d/b/a ADT Security Services, filed
22
an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment following the Court’s order to re-serve
23
Defendant. Dkt. Nos. 48, 49. On October 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Opposition to
24
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 55.
25
On November 3, 2017, Defendant filed its Reply asserting that Plaintiff had (1)
26
filed an Opposition that exceeded the allotted page limits as specified in the Civil Local
27
Rules and (2) had failed to file an affidavit or declaration to support the facts that Plaintiff
28
uses to oppose Defendant’s Motion. Dkt. No. 56. Plaintiff asks that the Court accept all
1
3:16-cv-02680-GPC-AGS
1
facts presented in Defendant’s Motion as undisputed or in the alternative order Plaintiff
2
to file an Opposition in compliance with the Civil Local Rules and the
3
affidavit/declaration requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4
Accordingly, Plaintiff is directed to file an amended opposition that conforms with
5
the Civil Local Rules for the Southern District of California. See Civil Local Rule 7.1(h)
6
(“Briefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to all motions noticed for the same
7
motion day must not exceed a total of twenty-five (25) pages in length, per party.”).
8
9
Further, the Court observes that plaintiff has not supported the factual contentions
in his brief with supporting declarations or affidavits. Federal Rule 56(e)(4) authorizes
10
federal courts to issue “any . . . appropriate order” when a non-moving party has failed to
11
oppose a summary judgment motion properly. The advisory notes to that Rule state that
12
such orders “should be designed to encourage proper presentation of the record.” Fed. R.
13
Civ. P. 56(e)(4), Advisory Committee Notes, 2010 Amendments. Further, courts may
14
“take extra care with pro se litigants, advising them of the need to respond [to a motion
15
for summary judgment] and the risk of losing by summary judgment if an adequate
16
response is not filed.” Id.
17
Here, the Court will take this opportunity to provide Plaintiff with notice of what is
18
required to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court provides the
19
following notice to Plaintiff for their information in connection with Defendants’ motion
20
for partial summary judgment:
21
Defendant is making a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the
22
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which, if granted, will end your case as to
23
the issues noticed by Defendant by granting judgment in favor of Defendant.
24
Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary
25
judgment. Generally summary judgment must be granted when there is no
26
genuine issue of material fact—that is, if there is no real dispute about any
27
fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary
28
judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When a party you are
2
3:16-cv-02680-GPC-AGS
1
suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by
2
declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what the
3
complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations,
4
depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as
5
provided in Rule 56(c). The evidence in those documents must contradict the
6
facts shown in the defendant’s declarations and documents and show that
7
there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your
8
own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be
9
entered against you as to the issues Defendant is challenging.
10
See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (with alterations) (emphasis
11
added).
12
Having provided this notice to Plaintiff, the Court hereby STRIKES Plaintiff’s
13
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 55). Defendant’s
14
motion remains undisturbed and shall not be refiled or amended.
15
Plaintiff shall file any amended opposition brief no later than Friday, December 1,
16
2017. This brief shall not exceed 25 pages. Further, Plaintiff shall include in any
17
amended opposition a revised separate statement of material facts that includes citations
18
to sworn affidavits or declarations. Defendant shall file any reply to an amended
19
opposition no later than Friday, December 15, 2017.
20
21
The Court CONTINUES the hearing set for December 8, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.
That hearing is now scheduled for January 19, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2D.
22
Finally, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s
23
Service of Summons (Dkt. No. 47). Pursuant to the Court’s Order dated September 20,
24
2017, Defendants served Plaintiff with an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment on
25
September 21, 2017, thus rendering Plaintiff’s motion moot. See Dkt. No. 49.
26
27
28
3
3:16-cv-02680-GPC-AGS
1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
Dated: November 6, 2017
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
3:16-cv-02680-GPC-AGS
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?