Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
John Henry Hart v. Pae Government Services Incorporated
July 11, 2011
JOHN HENRY HART, PLAINTIFF,
PAE GOVERNMENT SERVICES INCORPORATED, DEFENDANT.
This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the
undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule
302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On July 5, 2011, plaintiff
filed his third motion for summary judgment in this action.*fn1
Dckt. No. 22. However, once again, plaintiff's summary
judgment motion does not comply with the requirements set forth in
Local Rules 230(b) and 260(a), in that it was not noticed for hearing,
does not contain any supporting authority or evidence, and was not
accompanied by a Statement of Undisputed Facts. See E.D. Cal. L.R.
230(b) ("[A]ll motions shall be noticed on the motion calendar of the
assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge. The moving party shall file with
the Clerk 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."); 260(a) ("Each
motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication shall be
accompanied by a 'Statement of Undisputed Facts' that shall enumerate
discretely each of the specific material facts relied upon in support
of the motion and cite the particular portions of any pleading,
affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer, admission or other
document relied upon to establish that fact.").
Further, once again, the motion fails to indicate why or how plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment and is nearly unintelligible. A party seeking summary judgment bears the responsibility of informing the district court and the opposing party of the specified ground for its motion. Katz v. Children's Hosp. of Orange County, 28 F.3d 1520, 1534 (9th Cir. 1994).
Finally, it appears plaintiff's motion is still premature since the
court recently granted defendant's motion to compel plaintiff's
deposition and responses to document requests, in which defendant
indicated that plaintiff has not appeared for his deposition and has
not responded to any of defendant's discovery requests.*fn2
Dckt. No. 33. Although the court has construed plaintiff's
objections to that order as a motion for reconsideration, which will
be heard on August 3, 2011, it is apparent that defendant has not yet
been able to complete discovery in this action. See Dckt. No. 23 at 2
(citing Portland Retail Druggists Ass'n v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan,
662 F.2d 641, 645 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Martinez v. Whitman,2010
WL 475347, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2010) (citing Portsmouth Square,
Inc., v. Shareholders Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 869 (9th Cir.
1985) ("The case must be sufficiently advanced in terms of pretrial
discovery for the summary judgment target to know what evidence likely
can be mustered and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Dckt. No. 38, is denied without prejudice.
Buy This Entire Record For