Padilla-Baca v. Perea et al
Filing
79
ORDER. Plaintiff's 71 Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is stricken. Plaintiff may file a response which includes a Response to Statement of Undisputed Material Facts on or before 5/13/2011, such response not to inclu de any additional argument without first requesting leave from the Court to submit a supplemental response out of time. If plaintiff opposes the 65 Official Capacity Motion, he may file a motion seeking leave to file a separate response out of time on or before 5/13/2011. In the absence of such a request, the Court will deem the Official Capacity Motion to be unopposed. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 5/4/11. (mnfsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 09-cv-02968-PAB-MEH
ERICK OMAR PADILLA-BACA,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF AURORA, COLORADO,
AURORA POLICE DEPARTMENT,
PATRICIA PEREA, individually and in her professional capacity as a police officer,
RICHARD HEFTY, individually and in his professional capacity as a police officer, and
DAVID PEARSON, individually and in his professional capacity as a police officer,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s “Opposition to Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment” [Docket No. 71]. On February 15, 2011, defendants The City
of Aurora, Colorado and Aurora Police Department, as well as Patricia Perea, Richard
Hefty, and David Pearson in their official capacities, filed a motion for summary
judgment (“Official Capacity Motion”) [Docket No. 65]. Defendants Perea, Hefty, and
Pearson filed a separate motion for summary judgment (“Individual Capacity Motion”)
[Docket No. 66] on February 15, 2011 asserting the defense of qualified immunity.
Defendants’ motions both include a “Statement of Undisputed Material Facts,” as
required by Local Rule 56.1A, see D.COLO.LCivR 56.1A, and this Court’s Practice
Standards. See Practice Standards (Civil cases), Judge Philip A. Brimmer § III.F.3.b.i.
Plaintiff was required to, in a section entitled “Response to Statement of Undisputed
Material Facts,” “admit or deny the asserted material facts set forth by the movant” and
to provide “a brief factual explanation of the reason(s) for the denial and a specific
reference to material in the record supporting the denial.” Practice Standards (Civil
cases), Judge Philip A. Brimmer § III. F.3.b.iv. Plaintiff failed to do so. See Practice
Standards (Civil cases), Judge Philip A. Brimmer § III. F.3.b.ix (“Failure to follow these
procedures will result in an order striking or denying the motion or brief, and it will have
to be re-submitted.”). Furthermore, from the docket entry and the substance of
plaintiff’s response, plaintiff does not appear to be opposing the Official Capacity
Motion.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff’s “Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment” [Docket No. 71] is STRICKEN. Plaintiff may file a response which includes
a “Response to Statement of Undisputed Material Facts” on or before Friday, May 13,
2011, such response not to include any additional argument without first requesting
leave from the Court to submit a supplemental response out of time. It is further
ORDERED that, if plaintiff opposes the Official Capacity Motion [Docket No. 65],
he may file a motion seeking leave to file a separate response out of time on or before
Friday, May 13, 2011. In the absence of such a request, the Court will deem the
Official Capacity Motion to be unopposed.
2
DATED May 4, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
3
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?