Linlor v. International Information System Security Certification Consortium, Inc. et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 17cv430-MMA (BLM)
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
SYSTEM SECURITY CERTIFICATION
CONSORTIUM, INC., et al.,
[Doc. No. 9]
DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
[Doc. No. 12]
On January 26, 2017, Plaintiff James Linlor, proceeding pro se, commenced this
action in state court against Defendants International Information System Security
Certification Consortium, Inc., et al, for alleged violations of California’s Unruh Civil
Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51. On March 2, 2017, Defendants removed the action to
this Court. On March 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as to all
causes of action. See Doc. No. 12. Plaintiff’s motion is currently set for hearing on May
1, 2017. Defendants now move the Court for a continuance of the motion hearing, in
order to afford them additional time to conduct discovery regarding Plaintiff’s claims.
See Doc. No. 9. Defendants aver that absent the requested continuance, they will not be
able to sufficiently oppose Plaintiff’s pending motion. Defendants have submitted a
detailed declaration of counsel in support of their request.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) provides that the court may deny a motion
for summary judgment if the non-moving party “shows by affidavit or declaration that,
for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(d)(1). After conducting a review of the record, the Court finds that the
declaration of defense counsel demonstrates that Defendants have met the requirements
of Rule 56(d) in this case. Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice as
premature Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The Court DENIES AS MOOT
Defendants’ motion for a continuance.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: April 7, 2017
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge
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?