Engel v. Siroky et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying 37 Motion for Summary Judgment and denying 39 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 2/12/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

Alan R. Engel aka Ari Engel,
Case No.: 2-13-cv-00672-JAD-PAL

4

Plaintiff

5

vs.

6

Jan Siroky, Tom Cleary, Walter Milgroom, Arthur
Goltz, Dennis Kohler, and Does 1-5,

7

Order Re: Docs. 37, 39

Defendants

8

Pro se defendants Jan Siroky and Walter Milgroom moved for “summary judgment and

9
10

dismissal” on January 26 and 28, 2015, respectively. Docs. 37, 39. The arguments in both motions

11

are identical: plaintiff Alan R. Engel has failed to prosecute this lawsuit by, inter alia, conducting

12

discovery, making expert disclosures, or assisting in filing a joint pretrial order by the January 7,

13

2015, deadline. Doc. 37 at 1. Although neither motion is fully briefed, I deny both based on their

14

obvious failure to comply with the rules for presenting summary judgment motions.
This is not the first time I have advised Siroky and Milgroom of the rules for properly

15
16

presenting motions for summary judgment. In a February 14, 2014, order, I denied Siroky and

17

Milgroom’s previous motions for summary judgment, Docs. 10, 13, 18, 19, on the grounds that:
Siroky and Milgroom seek summary judgment on the simple, unsworn assertion
that plaintiff “has no evidence of any kind” to show a “conspiracy to harm him.”
Docs. 10, 13, 18, 19. Their single-page filings do not contain the statement of facts
required by LR 56-1. And they have failed to identify anything in the record that
demonstrates the absence of evidence to support Plaintiff’s claims. Siroky and
Milgroom have failed to discharge their initial burdens and summary judgment
would be improper based upon their motions as presented.

18
19
20
21
22

Doc. 32 at 4. Identical problems prevent Siroky and Milgroom’s new motions from getting any

23

traction. Both motions are two pages long, contain no proper affidavits or other admissible

24

evidence, fail to cite to the record in this case, and lack the statement of undisputed facts required by

25

this District’s Local Rule 56-1. In the interests of judicial economy, I need not wait for Engel’s

26

responses to these motions before disposing of them. Incorporating the analysis of Doc. 32 herein

27

by reference, I deny both motions for summary judgment for the same reasons articulated in Doc.

28

32.
1

1
2
3
4
5

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Milgroom’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[Doc. 37] is DENIED.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Siroky’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal
[Doc. 39] is DENIED.
DATED February 12, 2015.

6
7

_________________________________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2