Opinion
Case No.: 17cv430-MMA (BLM)
04-07-2017
JAMES LINLOR, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SYSTEM SECURITY CERTIFICATION CONSORTIUM, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
[Doc. No. 9]
DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
[Doc. No. 12]
On January 26, 2017, Plaintiff James Linlor, proceeding pro se, commenced this action in state court against Defendants International Information System Security Certification Consortium, Inc., et al, for alleged violations of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51. On March 2, 2017, Defendants removed the action to this Court. On March 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as to all causes of action. See Doc. No. 12. Plaintiff's motion is currently set for hearing on May 1, 2017. Defendants now move the Court for a continuance of the motion hearing, in order to afford them additional time to conduct discovery regarding Plaintiff's claims. See Doc. No. 9. Defendants aver that absent the requested continuance, they will not be able to sufficiently oppose Plaintiff's pending motion. Defendants have submitted a detailed declaration of counsel in support of their request.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) provides that the court may deny a motion for summary judgment if the non-moving party "shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)(1). After conducting a review of the record, the Court finds that the declaration of defense counsel demonstrates that Defendants have met the requirements of Rule 56(d) in this case. Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice as premature Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' motion for a continuance.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: April 7, 2017
/s/_________
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge