Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01290/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01290-6/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

27

28 * This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS ENGRAHM, )

) 02:04-cv-1290-GEB-GGH

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER*

v. )

)

COUNTY OF COLUSA, COUNTY OF COLUSA )

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, JOHN )

S. WRYSINSKI, individually and in )

his capacity as Director of County )

of Colusa Dept. of Public Works, )

DONALD F. STANTON, individually )

and in his capacity as legal )

counsel to County of Colusa, DAVID )

J. Shoemaker, individually and in )

his capacity as CAO/Personnel )

Director of Colusa County Dept. of )

Public Works, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On December 12, 2005, Defendants filed a “Motion for

Permission to File Defendants’ Separate Statement of [Undisputed]

Facts Supporting Summary Judgment” (“Motion for Permission”) and an ex

parte application in which Defendants request that their Motion for

Permission be briefed and heard on shortened time. Plaintiff opposed

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed November 18, 2005,

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH Document 110 Filed 12/15/05 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

27

28

2

arguing, inter alia, that it should be denied since Defendants failed

to file a Statement of Undisputed Facts as required by Local

Rule 56-260(a). (Pl.’s Opp’n to Summ. J. at 3-5.) The Motion for

Permission states that Plaintiff “strongly opposes any and all

remedies sought by Defendants to cure the [failure to comply with

Local Rule 56-260(a)].” (Mot. for Permission at 3.)

Local Rule 56-260(a) provides, in pertinent part, that

“[e]ach motion for summary judgment . . . shall be accompanied by a

‘Statement of Undisputed Facts’ . . . .” 

Requiring strict compliance with [Local Rule 56-260(a)] is

justified both by the nature of summary judgment and by the

rule’s purposes. The moving party’s statement [of

undisputed facts] specifies the material facts and directs

the district judge and the opponent of summary judgment to

the parts of the record which the movant believes support

his statement. The opponent then has the opportunity to

respond [to the statement of undisputed facts and file a

statement of disputed facts in order to show the existence

of] genuine factual issues. The procedure contemplated by

the [Local Rule] thus isolates the facts that the parties

assert are material, distinguishes disputed from undisputed

facts, and identifies the pertinent parts of the record.

Gardels v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 637 F.2d 770, 773 (D.C.

Cir. 1980). A movant’s failure to comply with Local Rule 56-260(a)

“makes a responding party’s burden unnecessarily more difficult” by

forcing the party to “sift through [the] motion and separate out the

facts and evidence relied on by [the movant] so that they are able to

respond to the merits of the motion.” Jin v. Hense, No. 01-CV-5282-

REC-SMS-P, 2005 WL 1561516, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2005). 

Accordingly, failure to comply with Local Rule 56-260(a) is an

appropriate basis for denying a motion for summary judgment. See Jin

v. Hense, No. 05-CV-5282-REC-SMS-P, 2005 WL 20000985, at *1 (E.D. Cal.

Aug. 17, 2005) (adopting, after de novo review, the magistrate judge’s

recommendation that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH Document 110 Filed 12/15/05 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

27

28

3

for failure to comply with Local Rule 56-260(a)); Greene v. Miles,

No. 04-CV-5439-AWI-LJO-P, 2005 WL 3030996 at *1-2 (E.D. Cal.

Nov. 7, 2005) (recommending denial of summary judgment motion for

failure to comply with Local Rule 56-260(a)); Sequoia Prop. & Equip.

Ltd. P’ship v. United States of America, No. 97-CV-5044-LJO, 2000

WL 1728117, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2000) (same). 

Since Defendants failed to file a Statement of Undisputed

Facts with their Motion for Summary Judgment filed November 18, 2005,

as prescribed in Local Rule 56-260(a), Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment is denied. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Permission and

ex parte application to shorten time no longer concern a pending

motion and are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 14, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH Document 110 Filed 12/15/05 Page 3 of 3