Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01578/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01578-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 47:553 Unauthorized Reception of Cable Service

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN CARRILLO MARTINEZ,

Defendant.

No. 1:14-cv-01578-DAD-BAM

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED, 

AND REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO 

SUBMIT WRITTEN OPPOSITION

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE 

COURT TO SERVE THIS ORDER ON 

DEFENDANT

On September 19, 2016, plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc. filed a motion for 

summary judgment on its claim under 47 U.S.C. § 605 and state law claim for conversion. (Doc. 

No. 43.) On October 17, 2016, defendant Martin Carrillo Martinez, appearing pro se, submitted a 

letter to the court indicating that he must care for his ill mother in Mexico. (Doc. No. 47.) To 

date, defendant Martinez has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s 

motion. See Local Rule 230(c). In light of defendant’s failure to respond to plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment, this court vacates the hearing on plaintiff’s motion, currently set for 

Case 1:14-cv-01578-DAD-BAM Document 48 Filed 11/08/16 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

November 15, 2016. See Local Rule 230(g).

The court hereby orders defendant Martinez to show cause why plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment should not be granted. Specifically, the court directs defendant Martinez to 

file a written response within twenty-eight (28) days of service of this order.

1

 In his response, 

defendant Martinez should (1) state why plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 43) should not be granted, 

and (2) include any evidence in support of his position that plaintiff’s motion should not be 

granted. If defendant fails to comply with this order, the court will deem plaintiff’s motion 

submitted on the present record and issue an order addressing plaintiff’s motion based solely on 

the arguments and evidence submitted by plaintiff. 

Accordingly,

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order, accompanied by a copy of 

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 43), on defendant at his address of 

record;

2. The November 15, 2016, hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment is 

vacated; and

3. Defendant Martinez shall file any response to plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment within twenty-eight (28) days of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff may, not more than fourteen (14) days after an opposition has been filed, if any, serve 

and file a reply to defendant’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

Case 1:14-cv-01578-DAD-BAM Document 48 Filed 11/08/16 Page 2 of 2