Opinion
Case No. C05-5007FDB.
February 3, 2006
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION
This Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Before the court is defendants' motion asking for a 21 day extension of time until January 27th, 2006 to file a dispositive motion. (Dkt. # 15). The reasons given for the extension of time are workload and difficulty contacting clients during the holiday season.
Counsel filed a summary judgement motion on January 27th, 2006. The motion for an extension of time is GRANTED.
Plaintiff's response to defendant's motion will be due on of before February 17th, 2006 and any reply will be due on or before February 24th, 2006. Plaintiff is again reminded:
If one of the parties files a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56, the opposing party should acquaint him/herself with Rule 56. Rule 56 requires a nonmoving party to submit affidavits or other evidence in opposition to a motion for summary judgment if the moving party has shown the absence of issues of material fact and an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. A nonmoving party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of prior pleadings. Rather, successful opposition to a motion for summary judgment requires the nonmoving party to set forth, through affidavits or other evidence, specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Failure by the nonmoving party to oppose a summary judgment motion or to present counter evidence could result in the Court accepting the moving party's evidence as the truth, and entering final judgment in favor of the moving party without a full trial. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520 (9th Cir. 1997).
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff, and counsel for defendant.