Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00430/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00430-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1 

17cv430-MMA (BLM) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES LINLOR, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION 

SYSTEM SECURITY CERTIFICATION 

CONSORTIUM, INC., et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 17cv430-MMA (BLM) 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; 

[Doc. No. 9] 

DENYING AS MOOT 

DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE 

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

[Doc. No. 12] 

 On January 26, 2017, Plaintiff James Linlor, proceeding pro se, commenced this 

action in state court against Defendants International Information System Security 

Certification Consortium, Inc., et al, for alleged violations of California’s Unruh Civil 

Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51. On March 2, 2017, Defendants removed the action to 

this Court. On March 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as to all 

causes of action. See Doc. No. 12. Plaintiff’s motion is currently set for hearing on May 

1, 2017. Defendants now move the Court for a continuance of the motion hearing, in 

Case 3:17-cv-00430-MMA-BLM Document 14 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

17cv430-MMA (BLM) 

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

order to afford them additional time to conduct discovery regarding Plaintiff’s claims. 

See Doc. No. 9. Defendants aver that absent the requested continuance, they will not be 

able to sufficiently oppose Plaintiff’s pending motion. Defendants have submitted a 

detailed declaration of counsel in support of their request. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) provides that the court may deny a motion 

for summary judgment if the non-moving party “shows by affidavit or declaration that, 

for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(d)(1). After conducting a review of the record, the Court finds that the 

declaration of defense counsel demonstrates that Defendants have met the requirements 

of Rule 56(d) in this case. Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice as 

premature Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The Court DENIES AS MOOT

Defendants’ motion for a continuance. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: April 7, 2017 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-00430-MMA-BLM Document 14 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2