Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00061/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00061-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

LARRY CALDWELL,

NO. CIV. S-05-0061 FCD JFM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH

SCHOOL DISTRICT; JAMES JOINER;

R. JAN PINNEY; TONY MONETTI;

STEVEN LAWRENCE; DONALD

GENASCI; RONALD SEVERSON,

Defendants.

_________________________/

----oo0oo----

The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s motion to strike

defendants’ statement of undisputed facts along with an ex parte

motion to expedite hearing on the motion. The court has reviewed

plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ statement of undisputed

facts as well as the underlying motions for summary judgment

filed by defendants. Defendants’s submissions fail to comply

with Rule 56 and Local Rule 56-260. Specifically, defendants

Case 2:05-cv-00061-FCD-JFM Document 79 Filed 07/26/06 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

have filed two separate motions for summary adjudication noticed

for the same date. In total, these two motions compromise a

motion for summary judgment and as such, should have been filed

as one motion. To the extent that defendants filed two motions

to comply with the court’s page limits, defendants should have

requested a page limit extension. The court strikes defendants’

filings in relation to the motions for summary judgment and

directs defendants to refile and reserve one motion for summary

judgment. Based upon a review of the filings and because a

Pretrial Scheduling Order has not issued in this case, the court

grants defendants a ten page extension from its normal limit of

twenty pages for their memorandum of points and authorities. 

The court has also reviewed defendants’ statements of

undisputed facts filed in conjunction with their motions for

summary adjudication. While already stricken, the court

nonetheless finds plaintiff’s motion to strike meritorious. Said

statements do not comply with Local Rule 56-260. As an initial

matter, defendants’ statements are rife with legal conclusions. 

The Statement of Undisputed Facts shall “enumerate each of the

material facts” in support of the motion. Local Rule 56-260(a). 

Further, defendants’ statements refer generally to the supporting

evidence. However, the Local Rules require that defendants “cite

the particular portions of any pleading, affidavit, deposition,

interrogatory answer, admission, or other document relied upon to

establish [a] fact.” Defendants must cite to specific paragraphs

or pages within exhibits that support a particular fact.

/////

///// 

Case 2:05-cv-00061-FCD-JFM Document 79 Filed 07/26/06 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

Defendants shall file and re-serve their motion by August 9,

2006. The motion shall remain on the court’s September 15, 2006

calendar.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 26, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00061-FCD-JFM Document 79 Filed 07/26/06 Page 3 of 3