Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00900/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00900-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF RICHARD BYRD, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

ATWATER RESERVE OFFICER )

MICHAEL TEATER, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

)

)

No. CV-F-06-900 OWW/GSA 

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

GORDON SPENCER’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 108)

AND SETTING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUESTS FOR DISMISSAL OF

REMAINING DEFENDANTS AND

RELIEF FROM ORDERS TO

PROVIDE DISCOVERY AND PAY

MONETARY SANCTION FOR

HEARING ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER

15, 2008 AT 10:00 A.M.

On June 4, 2008, Defendant Gordon Spencer filed a motion for

summary judgment, noticing the motion for hearing on July 28,

2008. By minute order filed on June 5, 2008, the hearing on the

motion for summary judgment was continued to August 4, 2008. 

Pursuant to Rule 78-230(c), Local Rules of Practice, Plaintiff’s

opposition to the motion or statement of non-opposition to the

motion was due to be filed by July 21, 2008. Plaintiff,

represented by Kevin Little, did not file a timely opposition or

statement of non-opposition. An Order to Show Cause was issued

Case 1:06-cv-00900-OWW -GSA Document 134 Filed 09/02/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2

on July 24, 2008, directing Mr. Little to appear on August 4,

2008 and show cause why this action should not be dismissed

pursuant to Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for

failure to prosecute this action. On July 29, 2008, Mr. Little

filed under seal a confidential declaration in response to the

Order to Show Cause. At the hearing on August 4, 2008, Mr.

Little represented that he could file an opposition to Defendant

Spencer’s motion for summary judgment. Mr. Little was orally 

ordered to file the opposition by August 18, 2008 and advised

that the action will be dismissed against Defendant Spencer if

Mr. Little did not timely comply.

On August 17, 2008, Mr. Little filed a Statement of NonOpposition:

Plaintiff the Estate of Richard Byrd, through

its undersigned counsel, hereby submits this

statement of non-opposition in response to

the motion for summary judgment or summary

adjudication filed by defendant Gordon

Spencer in this action. The motion,

plaintiff submits, presents issues identical

to those already ruled on by the Court in the

context of the motion for summary judgment or

summary adjudication filed previously by

defendant Mark Pazin. Plaintiff incorporates

his prior opposition, as well as the Court’s

ruling on Defendant Pazin’s motion, herein by

reference, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 10(c), and further advises the

Court that it has submitted already every

document and argument in opposition to that

motion that it could in response and

opposition to the pending motion. Plaintiff

understands that the Court, given its

obligation to decide similar issues

consistently, will likely make a similar

ruling despite plaintiff’s prior opposition

arguments. Accordingly, the plaintiff

tenders this statement of non-opposition, in

Case 1:06-cv-00900-OWW -GSA Document 134 Filed 09/02/08 Page 2 of 3
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

In the same pleading setting forth Plaintiff’s Statement of 1

Non-Opposition to Defendant Spencer’s motion for summary judgment,

Plaintiff requested dismissal of remaining parties without

prejudice to refiling in state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1367(c)(3) and tolling of the applicable statutes of limitations

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), and relief from the Orders filed

on July 24, 2008 and August 7, 2008 directing Plaintiff to provide

discovery and pay a monetary sanction. Hearing on these two

requests is set for Monday, September 15, 2008 at 10:00 a.m.

3

accordance with Local Rule 78-230(c), which

provides that ‘[a] responding party who has

no opposition to the granting of the motion

shall serve and file a statement to that

effect, specifically designating the motion

in question.’

Plaintiff having consented to Defendant Spencer’s motion for 

summary judgment, it is hereby GRANTED.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00900-OWW -GSA Document 134 Filed 09/02/08 Page 3 of 3