Gastelum v. Pinnacle Hotel Circle LP

Filing 38

ORDER Striking Plaintiff's 36 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 5/18/23. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(aas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FERNANDO GASTELUM, an individual,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

PINNACLE HOTEL CIRCLE LP dba
Comfort Inn and Suites San Diego Zoo
SeaWorld Area,

15
16
17

Case No.: 21-CV-1458 JLS (DEB)
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 36)

Defendant.

18
19

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.

20

36). The Motion was filed without Plaintiff first obtaining a hearing date from chambers,

21

in violation of Civil Local Rules 7.1(b) and 7.1(f)(1). “The requirement that a party obtain

22

a hearing date from the judge’s clerk is no empty formality; it is a rule of substantial

23

importance. Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(1)–(3), the hearing date sets in motion a

24

calendar for the filing of opposition and reply briefs.”

25

02CV2495LAB(WMC), 2007 WL 1975435, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2007), aff’d, 342 F.

26

App’x 341 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Civil Local Rules is

27

grounds to reject the filing. See id. at *2; see also S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.1(a) (providing that

28

failure to comply with the Civil Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court

Kashin v. Kent, No.

1
21-CV-1458 JLS (DEB)

1

of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the inherent power of the

2

Court”). Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the Motion for failure to comply with this

3

District’s Civil Local Rules. Plaintiff MAY REFILE the Motion in accordance with

4

appropriate Court procedures.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: May 18, 2023

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
21-CV-1458 JLS (DEB)