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.

Hardin v. Wal-Mart Stores

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 25, 2010

ZANE HARDIN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.; AND DOES 1-100, DEFENDANTS.

ORDER RESETTING HEARING DATE TO SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 AND VACATING SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

Defendant Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgment on July 16, 2010, with a hearing set for August 23, 2010. Defendant filed a brief, a statement of undisputed material facts, and evidentiary exhibits. Docs. 62, 63, and 64. The filings did not include a formal notice. Local Rule 230(b) states in relevant part "The moving party shall file a notice of motion, motion, accompanying briefs, affidavits, if appropriate, and copies of all documentary evidence that the moving party intends to submit in support of the motion." When notified of the oversight, Defendant filed a notice on August 3, 2010, resetting the hearing for September 7, 2010. Doc. 67. The dispositive motion deadline in this case was July 16, 2010. Doc. 43. Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the summary judgment, arguing that the motion is "not timely, and must be summarily denied." Doc. 71.

Defendant's filings on July 16, 2010 included all substantive material necessary to support a summary judgment motion. The lack of formal notice was a minor defect. The operative scheduling order requires that "All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions shall be filed no later than July 16, 2010...In scheduling such motions, the parties shall comply with Local Rules 78-230 [now Local Rule 230] and 56-260 [now Local Rule 260]." Doc. 43, at 4:19-22. Local Rule 230(b) states in part, "Motions defectively noticed shall be filed, but not set for hearing." Thus, the summary judgment motion should be considered filed on July 16, 2010. Defendants have not violated the scheduling order. Even if there was a violation, it was de minimis and did not prejudice Plaintiff in any way.

The hearing on the summary judgment motion is rescheduled to 1:30 PM on September 20, 2010, to allow Plaintiff to file a substantive opposition in compliance with Local Rules 230 and 260 . The pretrial conference scheduled for September 9, 2010, is vacated and will be reset at a later date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100825

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



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.