Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

Stevenson J. Williams, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIV 04-459 PHX JWS (VAM) O R D E R

On August 23, 2005, defendants Arpaio and Tate filed a Motion to Extend Time to File Dispositive Motions (Doc. 28). They

requested an additional two days to file their dispositive motion. The Motion to Extend will be granted and defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Statement of Facts filed on August 30, 2005 will be deemed timely filed. On August 30, 2005, defendants Arpaio and Tate filed a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. NOTICE--WARNING TO PLAINTIFF THIS NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO YOU BY THE COURT1 The defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment seeks to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case.

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962 (9th Cir. 1998). Document 31 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00459-JWS-VAM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted

when there is no genuine issue of material fact--that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. When a party

you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. specific facts in declarations, Instead, you must set out answers to

depositions,

interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendants'

declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in

opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed

and there will be no trial. LRCiv 56.1 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona also requires, in

addition, that you include as a part of your opposition to a

Motion

for Summary Judgment a separate statement of facts in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. (a) Any party filing a motion for summary judgment shall set forth separately from the memorandum of law, and in full, the specific facts on which that party relies in support of the motion. The specific facts shall be set forth in serial fashion and not in narrative form. As to each fact, the statement shall refer to a specific portion of the record where the fact may be found (i.e., affidavit, deposition, etc.). Any party opposing a motion for summary judgment must comply with the foregoing in 2 Case 2:04-cv-00459-JWS-VAM Document 31 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

setting forth the specific facts, which the opposing party asserts, including those facts which establish a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment in favor of the moving party. In the alternative, the movant and the party opposing the motion shall jointly file a stipulation signed by the parties setting forth a statement of the stipulated facts if the parties agree there is no genuine issue of any material fact. As to any stipulated facts, the parties so stipulating may state that their stipulations are entered into only for the purposes of the motion for summary judgment and are not intended to be otherwise binding. Additional provisions of LRCiv 7.2, Rules of Practice of the

8 United States District Court for the District of Arizona are as 9 follows: 10 Subparagraph (e) of that Rule provides: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 It is plaintiff's obligation to timely respond to all motions. 22 The failure of plaintiff to respond to defendants' Motion for 23 Summary Judgment may in the discretion of the Court be deemed a 24 consent to the granting of that Motion without further notice, and 25 judgment may be entered dismissing the complaint and action with 26 prejudice pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i). 27 28 Case 2:04-cv-00459-JWS-VAM 3 Document 31 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 3 of 4 See Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d Unless otherwise permitted by the Court, a motion including its supporting memorandum, and the response including its supporting memorandum, each shall not exceed seventeen (17) pages, exclusive of attachments and any required statement of facts. Unless otherwise permitted by the Court, a reply including its supporting memorandum shall not exceed eleven (11) pages, exclusive of attachments. Subparagraph (i) of LRCiv 7.2 provides: If a motion does not conform in all substantial respects with the requirements of this Local Rule, or if the opposing party does not serve and file the required answering memoranda, or if counsel for any party fails to appear at the time and place assigned for oral argument, such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

651 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting defendants' Motion to Extend Time to File Dispositive Motions. (Doc. 28). The Motion for

Summary Judgment and Statement of Facts filed on August 30, 2005 are deemed timely filed. (Docs. 29, 30).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have until October 12, 2005 within which to file a response to defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, together with supporting affidavits or other appropriate exhibits and a separate Statement of Facts. Defendants shall have until November 2, 2005 to file a reply. DATED this 9th day of September, 2005.

4 Case 2:04-cv-00459-JWS-VAM Document 31 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 4 of 4