Dimas v. Pecos Indep. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.

1 Citing case

  1. Mkrtchyan v. Sacramento Cnty.

    2:17-cv-02366-DAD-KJN (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2023)

    See, e.g., Garza v. Chavez, No. 10-cv-07658-VBF, 2014 WL 3572148, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2014) (finding that a pro se plaintiff's request to defer ruling on a summary judgment motion so that he could conduct additional discovery to be too late because the request was made two days after plaintiff filed his opposition brief, and the court noted that “the proper course of action was to file a much earlier request to push back the deadlines and defer ruling . . . pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d)”) (citation omitted); Martin v. Rubalcava, No. 2:12-cv-02232-EFB, 2014 WL 794342, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2014) (denying the plaintiff's Rule 56(d) request and finding that the plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements, in part, because the plaintiff filed his request after filing his opposition to the defendant's summary judgment motion and after the defendant had already filed his reply brief); Dimas v. Pecos Indep. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., No. 1:21-cv-00978-KWR-JFR, 2022 WL 2135345, at *12 (D.N.M. June 14, 2022) (“Here, first, by filing a responsive brief to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff waived her right to seek additional discovery.”)