Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fabbrini v. City of Dunsmuir

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 19, 2009

DAVID FABBRINI, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF DUNSMUIR, JOHN FISHER, BILL SANFORD, KEITH ANDERSON, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER*fn1

Defendants move for summary judgment of Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 malicious prosecution claim. The gravamen of this claim is that the Defendant City of Dunsmuir lacked probable cause to commence a prior state court declaratory relief lawsuit against Plaintiff for his refusal to provide full collateralization to the City for a loan he obtained from the City.

Defendants show in their motion that they had probable cause to commence the lawsuit. Plaintiff admits in his response to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts that he did not provide full collateralization on the loan he received from the City, in violation of the terms of the loan. (Defs.' Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶ 5, 6.)

Plaintiff also seeks "additional time to complete discovery" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), following which he would supplement his opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motion. However, "Rule 56(f) requires affidavits setting forth particular facts expected from [additional] discovery." Mackey v. Pioneer Nat'l Bank, 867 F.2d 520, 523-24 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). Plaintiff merely states he intends to depose Defendant John Fischer on May 1, 2009; however, this statement does not explain the particular facts Plaintiff expects to discover at this deposition. Therefore, Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) request is denied.

Plaintiff also seeks in his Opposition brief reconsideration of the Court's February 12, 2008 Order. However, Plaintiff's reconsideration request does not comply with Local Rule 78-230(k), which requires the request to state "what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exists which did not exist or were not shown upon [the] prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion, and [] why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion." Therefore this request is denied.

For the stated reasons, Defendants' motion is granted and judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.