Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY D. HAMILTON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

)

HENRY W. WILLMS, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 02 6583 AWI SMS

ORDER GRANTING SUSAN WILLMS

THURSTON’S AND REDWOOD

TRUST DEED SERVICES, INC.’S

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

ORDER VACATING SEPTEMBER 26,

2005 HEARING

(Documents #262 & #264)

This action proceeds on Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. Defendant Susan Willms

Thurston (“Defendant Thurston”) filed a motion for summary judgment. Defendant Redwood

Trust Deed Services (“Defendant RTDS”) also filed a motion for summary judgment. Defendant

Thurston’s and Defendant RTDS’s motions for summary judgment were set for oral arguments to

be heard on September 26, 2005. Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(c), Plaintiffs were required to

file either an opposition or a notice of non-opposition no later than September 12, 2005.

On September 8, 2005, Plaintiffs filed notices of non-opposition to Defendant Thurston’s

and Defendant RTDS’s motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when

it is demonstrated that there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Based on Plaintiffs’ nonopposition to Defendant Thurston’s and Defendant RTDS’s motions, summary judgment is

appropriate as to Defendant Thurston and Defendant RTDS.

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 309 Filed 09/13/05 Page 1 of 2
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

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. The previously set hearing date of September 26, 2005, is VACATED, and the

parties shall not appear at that time;

2. Defendant Thurston’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; and

3. Defendant RTDS’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 309 Filed 09/13/05 Page 2 of 2