Gonzalez v. City Of North Las Vegas Police Department et al

Filing 28

ORDER Granting 25 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 4/9/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

***

10
JESUS GONZALEZ,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MICHAEL MYERS, BRIAN SACHS, JASON )
ARNONA, R. PARRISH,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

Case No.: 2:10-cv-01850-RLH-VCF
ORDER
(Motion for Summary Judgment–#25)

16
Before the Court is Defendants North Las Vegas Police Officers Michael Myers,

17
18

Brian Sachs, Jason Arnona, and Ryan Parrish’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#25, filed Feb.

19

16, 2012). The Court has also considered Defendants Reply (#27, filed Mar. 19), which was in

20

reality a notice of non-opposition. Plaintiff Jesus Gonzalez did not file a response.
DISCUSSION

21
22
23

I.

Standard
The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials when there is no

24

dispute as to the facts before the court. Nw. Motorcycle Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 18 F.3d

25

1468, 1471 (9th Cir.1994). Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, the discovery

26

and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits “show there is no genuine issue as to any

AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

1

1

material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v.

2

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). An issue is “genuine” if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis

3

on which a reasonable fact-finder could find for the nonmoving party and a dispute is “material” if

4

it could affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

5

477 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1986). Where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue,

6

however, summary judgment is not appropriate. Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441

7

(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1171 (1996). “The amount of evidence necessary to raise a

8

genuine issue of material fact is enough ‘to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing

9

versions of the truth at trial.’” Aydin Corp. v. Loral Corp., 718 F.2d 897, 902 (9th Cir. 1983)

10

(quoting First Nat'l Bank v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288–89 (1968)). In evaluating a

11

summary judgment motion, a court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light most

12

favorable to the nonmoving party. Kaiser Cement Corp. v. Fishbach & Moore, Inc., 793 F.2d

13

1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 1986).

14

The moving party bears the burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of

15

material fact. Zoslaw v. MCA Distrib. Corp., 693 F.2d 870, 883 (9th Cir. 1982). “In order to carry

16

its burden of production, the moving party must either produce evidence negating an essential

17

element of the nonmoving party’s claim or defense or show that the nonmoving party does not

18

have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.”

19

Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). Once the

20

moving party satisfies Rule 56’s requirements, the burden shifts to the party resisting the motion to

21

“set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256.

22

The nonmoving party “may not rely on denials in the pleadings but must produce specific

23

evidence, through affidavits or admissible discovery material, to show that the dispute exists,”

24

Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991), and “must do more than simply

25

show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Orr v. Bank of America, 285

26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

2

1

F.3d 764, 783 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted). “The mere existence of a scintilla of

2

evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.

3

II.

Analysis

4

A district court cannot rely on its local rules as a basis for granting summary

5

judgment. Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003). Several Ninth Circuit

6

decisions have made clear that a nonmoving party’s failure to comply with local rules does not

7

excuse the moving party's affirmative duty under Rule 56 to demonstrate its entitlement to

8

judgment as a matter of law. Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003).

9

Otherwise, the court turns the summary judgment rule into a mere sanction for noncompliance

10

with local rules. Id.; see also Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949–50 (9th Cir. 1993)

11

(quoting Hamilton v. Keystone Tankship Corp., 539 F.2d 684, 686 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1976)).

12

Thus, even though Gonzalez failed to oppose Defendants’ motion for summary

13

judgment, the Court examines the motion and the evidence presented by the Defendants to

14

determine whether Defendants have met their burden to show that the evidence demonstrates that

15

they are entitled judgment as a matter of law. After a review of Defendants arguments and

16

proffered evidence, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled summary judgment.

17

CONCLUSION

18

Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,

19

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#25)

20
21

is GRANTED.
Dated: April 9, 2012.

22
23

____________________________________
ROGER L. HUNT
United States District Judge

24
25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

3