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)

Download PDF
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)

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?