From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Funk v. Town of Paradise

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 13, 2015
2:09-cv-01000 MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2015)

Opinion


HAROLD ANTHONY FUNK, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF PARADISE, et al., Defendants. No. 2:09-cv-01000 MCE-CKD United States District Court, E.D. California. March 13, 2015

          SCHEDULING ORDER

          MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

         After reviewing the parties' Status Reports, the Court orders the parties to file summary judgment motions in accordance with the schedule below. Any additional dates and deadlines, including dates for the Phase Two Final Pretrial Conference and Trial, will be set, if necessary, by a Supplemental Scheduling Order following the Court's ruling on summary judgment.

         Motion for Summary April 23, 2015 Judgment due Opposition to Motion due May 14, 2015 Reply to Motion due May 28, 2015 Hearing on Motion June 11, 2015, 2:00 p.m., Courtroom 7

         All purely legal issues are to be resolved by timely pretrial motions. When appropriate, failure to comply with Local Rules 230 and 260, as modified by this Order, may be deemed consent to the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily. With respect to motions for summary judgment, failure to comply with Local Rules 230 and 260, as modified by this Order, may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute (or failure to defend) pursuant to this Court's inherent authority to control its docket and/or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Further, failure to timely oppose a summary judgment motion may result in the granting of that motion if the movant shifts the burden to the nonmovant to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact remains for trial.

he Court urges any party that contemplates bringing a motion for summary judgment or who must oppose a motion for summary judgment to review Local Rule 260.

         The Court places a page limit for points and authorities (exclusive of exhibits and other supporting documentation) of twenty (20) pages on all initial moving papers, twenty (20) pages on oppositions, and ten (10) pages for replies. All requests for page limit increases must be made in writing to the Court setting forth any and all reasons for any increase in page limit at least seven (7) days prior to the filing of the motion.

         For the Court's convenience, citations to the Supreme Court Lexis database should include parallel citations to the Westlaw database.

         The parties are reminded that a motion in limine is a pretrial procedural device designed to address the admissibility of evidence. The Court will look with disfavor upon dispositional motions presented at the Final Pretrial Conference or at trial in the guise of motions in limine.

         The parties are cautioned that failure to raise a dispositive legal issue that could have been tendered to the court by proper pretrial motion prior to the dispositive motion cut-off date may constitute waiver of such issue.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Funk v. Town of Paradise

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 13, 2015
2:09-cv-01000 MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2015)
Case details for

Funk v. Town of Paradise

Case Details

Full title:HAROLD ANTHONY FUNK, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF PARADISE, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Mar 13, 2015

Citations

2:09-cv-01000 MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2015)