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.

Velasquez v. Donahue

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

June 6, 2013

RODOLFO VELASQUEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK R. DONAHUE, et al., Defendants.

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PROVIDING RAND NOTICE

JEFFREY S. WHITE, District Judge.

On May 17, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, which is noticed for a hearing on June 21, 2013. Under Northern District Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff's opposition to the motion was due by no later than May 31, 2013. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition brief.

Plaintiff has an obligation to file an opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment and failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this case with prejudice. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end Plaintiff's case. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-54 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). A principal purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to identify and dispose of factually supported claims. See Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). In order to withstand a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact in dispute. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In the absence of such facts, "the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp., 477 at 323.

In opposing summary judgment, Plaintiff is not entitled to rely on the allegations of his complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); cf. S. A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines) v. Walter Kidde & Co., 690 F.2d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 1982) (stating that "a party cannot manufacture a genuine issue of material fact merely by making assertions in its legal memoranda"). Rather, his response must set forth specific facts supported by admissible evidence, i.e., affidavits or certified deposition testimony, showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See id.; see also Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Richards v. Combined Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1995), and stating that it is not a district court's task to "scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact"). If summary judgment is granted, Plaintiff's case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. See Rand, 154 F.3d at 953-54.

Accordingly, the Court is providing Plaintiff until Friday, June 21, 2013, to file an opposition to Defendants' motion. Defendants may file a reply brief no later than June 28, 2013. The Court HEREBY CONTINUES the hearing on Defendants' motion for summary judgment to August 16, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. If no opposition is filed, summary judgment may be granted and Plaintiff's case will be dismissed. If Plaintiff files an opposition, and if the Court determines that the matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument, it will so advise the parties in advance of the hearing date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.