Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05800/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05800-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

M. BELINDA TRAVIS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

JOHN F. POTTER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1: 03-CV-5800-SMS

ORDER CONSTRUING MOTION FOR

HEARING AS A REQUEST TO SUBMIT

LATE OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TO HAVE

AHEARING ON THE MOTION (DOC. 26)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

TO FILE LATE OPPOSITION AND TO BE

HEARD ON THE MOTION (DOC. 26)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

RETURN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

AGREEMENT TO PLAINTIFF 

Plaintiff is proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge for all

proceedings, including the entry of final judgment, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b), and Local Rule 73-301.

I. Background

On July 18, 2005, Defendants filed a motion for summary

judgment that was set for hearing on September 9, 2005. Plaintiff

failed to file timely opposition to the motion. On September 2,

2005, a week before the hearing date, the Court issued an order

noting Plaintiff’s failure to file timely opposition to

Case 1:03-cv-05800-SMS Document 27 Filed 09/14/05 Page 1 of 4
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

 The docket reflects that a copy of this order has been served on Plaintiff.

2

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and stating that

Plaintiff was not entitled to be heard in opposition to the

motion at a hearing. This is pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(c),

which specifically provides that no party will be entitled to be

heard in opposition to a motion at oral argument if opposition to

the motion has not been timely filed by that party. The Court

further found that pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h), the

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was a matter that might

appropriately be submitted upon the record and briefs, including

the Defendants’ notice of motion, memorandum of points and

authorities, statement of undisputed facts, declarations, and

exhibits submitted in support of the motion. The Court vacated

the hearing on the motion and deemed the matter submitted for

decision.1

II. Untimely Opposition

On September 9, the day on which the hearing would have

taken place had it not been vacated, Plaintiff filed a “Motion

for Hearing,” in which she addressed briefly the points raised in

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Court CONSTRUES this

motion TO BE a request to file untimely opposition and a request

for hearing on the motion. 

No showing of cause for the tardy filing accompanied this

filing. However, a copy of a collective bargaining agreement was

submitted with the filing. 

A court has broad discretion to interpret and apply its

local rules. Dulange v. Dutro Construction, Inc., 183 F.3d 916,

Case 1:03-cv-05800-SMS Document 27 Filed 09/14/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

919 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1999). Local Rule 78-230 requires that

opposition to a motion be filed not less than fourteen days

preceding the hearing date and served not less than fourteen or

seventeen days (personal service, or electronic and mail,

respectively) preceding the hearing date. The Court in its

discretion may refuse to consider matters that are not timely

filed as a result of inexcusable neglect, Cusano v. Klein, 264

F.3d 936, 950-51 (9th Cir. 2001) (not considering evidence

submitted late in response to a motion for summary judgment);

further, Local Rule 78-230(c) expressly provides that a party

will not be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at

oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely

filed by that party. In an informational order served on

Plaintiff on March 30, 2004, Plaintiff was expressly informed of

the requirement to follow the Local Rules and that all time

deadlines would be strictly enforced, and that requests for

extensions must precede the deadline and must contain a statement

of the reason for the request. See also Local Rule 6-144.

Considering all the circumstances, the Court finds that no

good cause has been shown for an extension, and the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s request for leave to file untimely opposition.

Further, the Clerk IS DIRECTED to return to Plaintiff the

collective bargaining agreement, which appears to have been

submitted as part and parcel of the untimely response to

Defendant’s motion. 

III. Request for Hearing

Plaintiff entitled the document filed on September 9, 2005,

a “Motion for Hearing.” Plaintiff states that her witnesses have

Case 1:03-cv-05800-SMS Document 27 Filed 09/14/05 Page 3 of 4
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

not testified in her behalf.

In the informational order of March 2004, the nature of

summary judgment proceedings, and the type of opposition required

to be filed in response to such a motion, were explained to

Plaintiff. The motion presently before the Court concerns whether

or not an issue of material fact exists and whether Defendants

are entitled to judgment as a matter of law; such a motion does

not constitute a full trial of the action on the merits at which

Plaintiff may present witnesses to prove her case. Only after the

Court determines Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will it

be known whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to a trial on the

merits of the controversy.

The Court has previously determined that the matter is one

which may be submitted on the papers. Plaintiff has not shown any

basis for changing the Court’s determination, and Plaintiff is

not entitled to be heard in opposition to the motion. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a hearing on the motion

IS DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05800-SMS Document 27 Filed 09/14/05 Page 4 of 4