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.

Sean Barbin v. Mv Transportiation

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


March 11, 2013

SEAN BARBIN,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MV TRANSPORTIATION, INC.,
DEFENDANT.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN OPPOSITION, AND ORDER RESETTING HEARING Doc. No. 23

Currently set for hearing and decision on March 18, 2013, is Defendant's motion for summary judgment. *fn1 On February 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to file discovery responses. See Doc. No. 23. On February 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the summary judgment motion. See Doc. No. 27. The opposition cites to Rule 50 and contends that, because no ruling has been made on the request to extend discovery deadlines, Defendant's summary judgment motion is improper. See id.

With respect to the motion for an extension of time, the indication is that Plaintiff requests the extension in order to provide or submit evidence that he has already obtained. Plaintiff indicates that an extension is warranted because he was hospitalized in October 2012. However, Plaintiff does not support his motion with any evidence or declarations. Without evidence and further elaboration regarding the hospitalization (such as duration, nature, and restrictions caused by the hospitalization), an extension of time is not warranted. Plaintiff's motion for an extension will be denied without prejudice. *fn2

With respect to Plaintiff's opposition to summary judgment, it is apparent that there is misapprehension by Plaintiff. Rule 50 deals with cases in which a jury trial has occurred or when a jury trial is presently occurring. Because no part of this case has been presented to a jury, Rule 50 has no application to these proceedings at this point. Further, the fact that a motion regarding discovery has yet to be ruled upon is not of itself grounds to deny Defendant's motion. Plaintiff's opposition in no way justifies denying Defendant's motion.

Given Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court will give Plaintiff another opportunity to properly oppose summary judgment. Plaintiff will be ordered to submit an opposition that complies with Local Rule 260 and that is supported by a memorandum of points and authorities. *fn3

Since Plaintiff has had Defendant's motion since February 5, 2013, the Court will give Plaintiff until March 22, 2013, to file either an opposition or notice of non-opposition. *fn4 The current March 18, 2013 hearing date will be vacated and the matter will be reset to April 8, 2013.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 23) is DENIED without prejudice;

2. The March 18, 2013, hearing date on Defendant's motion for summary judgment is VACATED;

2. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment, consistent with Local Rule 260 and this order, no later than March 22, 2013; *fn5

3. Defendant may file a reply to Plaintiff's opposition no later than 3:00 p.m. on March 29, 2013; and

4. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is RESET to April 8, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE


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.