Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06806/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06806-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE BARNES MARKS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TOM CHICOINE, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 06-06806 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On August 17, 2007, the Court heard argument on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

against defendant Tom Chicoine. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of

material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 

The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to “designate ‘specific facts showing that there

is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 324 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). To carry this burden, the nonmoving party must “do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material

facts.” Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). “The

mere existence of a scintilla of evidence . . . will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the

jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party].” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,

Case 3:06-cv-06806-SI Document 101 Filed 08/21/07 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Initially, defendants Chicone, Home 123 Corporation and New Century Mortgage Corporation

were jointly represented by Wolfe & Wyman LLP. On May 21, 2007 this Court granted a motion to

withdraw as his counsel by the attorneys representing defendant. Prior to withdrawing, counsel filed

an answer to plaintiff’s most recent complaint on Chicoine’s behalf. Prior to withdrawal of counsel,

Chicoine also filed answers to some discovery propounded by plaintiff.

2

252 (1986). 

In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable

to the non-moving party, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor. Id. at 255.

“Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from

the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge [when she] is ruling on a motion for summary

judgment.” Id.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff, acting pro se, moves for summary judgement against defendant Chicione, who is also

without counsel.1 Chicoine failed to file a response to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement. 

The Ninth Circuit explained as follows the legal standard to apply where a Rule 56 motion for

summary judgment is unopposed:

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, a moving party is entitled to summary

judgment only upon a showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact requiring

a trial. The party opposing the motion is under no obligation to offer affidavits or any

other materials in support of its opposition. Summary judgment may be resisted and

must be denied on no other grounds than that the movant has failed to meet its burden

of demonstrating the absence of triable issues. A local rule that requires the entry of

summary judgment simply because no papers opposing the motion are filed or served,

and without regard to whether genuine issues of material fact exist, would be

inconsistent with Rule 56, hence impermissible under Rule 83.

Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Thus here, the fact that Chicoine has not filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion does not allow

the Court to automatically grant plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff still has the burden of demonstrating the

absence of triable issues of fact. Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden.

In order to grant summary judgement the moving part must demonstrate there is no genuine issue

of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgement as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c). As such, the moving party must usually present evidence that proves her case. Plaintiff has failed

Case 3:06-cv-06806-SI Document 101 Filed 08/21/07 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

 A declaration is a statement of facts which are personally known to the person making the

declaration. The facts in a declaration must be admissible in evidence, i.e., evidentiary facts and not

conclusions or argument. The declaration must show affirmatively that the person making the

declaration is competent to testify to the matters stated therein and contain no inadmissible hearsay or

opinions. A declaration must be made under penalty of perjury, i.e., it must be signed at the end after

the statement "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this

declaration was executed on [date]."

3

to do so. Plaintiff presents no affidavits, declarations, or other evidence that would support her claims.

Should plaintiff wish to again move for summary judgment, or otherwise continue pursuing her

case against Mr. Chicoine, the following information may prove useful:

A motion for summary judgment provides a procedure for terminating an action without trial if

"there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Material facts are those which may affect the outcome of the case.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine

if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the party opposing the motion

for summary judgment. Id.

The party filing the motion for summary judgment is called the “moving party.” The moving

party bears the initial burden of identifying those portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits

which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S.

317, 323 (1986). Where, as in this case, the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at

trial, it must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the

moving party. Id. 

The facts relied upon must be admissible under rules governing admission of evidence generally,

and must be presented in items such as: (1) declarations based on personal knowledge, accompanied

by sworn or certified copies of all documents referred to in the declaration2

; id.; (2) discovery

documents, such as answers to deposition questions, answers to interrogatories or answers to requests

for admissions, that have been properly authenticated by a declaration by someone with personal

knowledge of the documents' accuracy, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); (3) verified complaints that meet the

requirements of Rule 56(e) (that is, complaints containing factual assertions that are within the pleader's

personal knowledge and are otherwise admissible evidence), see Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454,

Case 3:06-cv-06806-SI Document 101 Filed 08/21/07 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

460 (9th Cir. 1995); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1090 n.1 (9th Cir. 1996)). The evidence presented

on each claim must not only be admissible, but also must be sufficient for a jury to reasonably return

a verdict for the moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. 

Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the opposing party may not rest upon the

allegations or denials of unverified pleadings, but must file an opposition setting forth specific facts

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). If the opposing party fails to

contradict the moving party with declarations or other evidence, the moving party's evidence may be

taken as the truth. If the moving party has met its burden of proof and the opposing party fails to set

forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, then “the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. A successful motion for summary

judgment terminates the action without trial, and will result in a final judgment on the merits.

Thus in this case, should Ms. Marks wish to again seek summary judgment, she must submit

hard evidence, including declarations that set forth her personal knowledge of the facts underlying her

claims. If she lacks personal knowledge of certain facts, she must seek evidence of those facts through

formal discovery – from Chicoine, or from others who may have personal knowledge of the relevant

facts. If Chicoine fails to respond to formal discovery requests, plaintiff may seek sanctions against

him. Those sanctions may include issue preclusion -- that is, defendant may be foreclosed from

presenting evidence concerning various issues, if his discovery failure relates to those issues; this could

ultimately result in dismissal of the case. 

 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against

defendant Chicoine. [Docket No. 98]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06806-SI Document 101 Filed 08/21/07 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

Case 3:06-cv-06806-SI Document 101 Filed 08/21/07 Page 5 of 5