Linlor v. International Information System Security Certification Consortium, Inc. et al

Filing 14

ORDER Denying without Prejudice Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Summary Judgment; Denying as Moot Defendant's 12 Ex Parte Motion for Continuance. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 4/7/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ag)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES LINLOR,

Case No.: 17cv430-MMA (BLM)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION
SYSTEM SECURITY CERTIFICATION
CONSORTIUM, INC., et al.,

15
16

[Doc. No. 9]

Defendants.

17

DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

18
19

[Doc. No. 12]

20
21
22

On January 26, 2017, Plaintiff James Linlor, proceeding pro se, commenced this

23

action in state court against Defendants International Information System Security

24

Certification Consortium, Inc., et al, for alleged violations of California’s Unruh Civil

25

Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51. On March 2, 2017, Defendants removed the action to

26

this Court. On March 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as to all

27

causes of action. See Doc. No. 12. Plaintiff’s motion is currently set for hearing on May

28

1, 2017. Defendants now move the Court for a continuance of the motion hearing, in
1
17cv430-MMA (BLM)

1

order to afford them additional time to conduct discovery regarding Plaintiff’s claims.

2

See Doc. No. 9. Defendants aver that absent the requested continuance, they will not be

3

able to sufficiently oppose Plaintiff’s pending motion. Defendants have submitted a

4

detailed declaration of counsel in support of their request.

5

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) provides that the court may deny a motion

6

for summary judgment if the non-moving party “shows by affidavit or declaration that,

7

for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.” Fed. R.

8

Civ. P. 56(d)(1). After conducting a review of the record, the Court finds that the

9

declaration of defense counsel demonstrates that Defendants have met the requirements

10

of Rule 56(d) in this case. Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice as

11

premature Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The Court DENIES AS MOOT

12

Defendants’ motion for a continuance.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: April 7, 2017

_______________________________________
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17cv430-MMA (BLM)