Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03683/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03683-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL HUMMEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03683-JSC 

NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF REGARDING 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND 

ORDER RESETTING SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Re: Dkt. No. 33

Defendant has filed a motion for partial summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. This notice is written to explain to the pro se plaintiff how the summary 

judgment process works and the consequences if a summary judgment motion is granted in the 

defendant’s favor. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998).

A motion for summary judgment provides a procedure for terminating an action without 

trial if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Material facts are those which may affect the 

outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a 

material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for 

the party opposing the motion for summary judgment. Id.

The party filing the motion for summary judgment is called the “moving party”; the party 

opposing the motion is called the “opposing party.” The moving party bears the initial burden of 

identifying those portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the 

absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 

Where the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, it must affirmatively 

demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party. But on an 

Case 3:14-cv-03683-JSC Document 36 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

issue for which the opposing party will have the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need 

only point out that there is an absence of evidence to support the opposing party’s case. Id.

Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the opposing party may not rest upon the 

allegations or denials of unverified pleadings, but must file an opposition setting forth specific 

facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). The facts relied upon 

must be admissible under rules governing admission of evidence generally, and must be presented 

in items such as: (1) declarations based on personal knowledge, accompanied by sworn or certified 

copies of all documents referred to in the declaration,1 id.; (2) discovery documents, such as 

answers to deposition questions, answers to interrogatories or answers to requests for admissions, 

that have been properly authenticated by a declaration by someone with personal knowledge of the 

documents’ accuracy, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); (3) verified complaints that meet the requirements of 

Rule 56(e)—that is, complaints containing factual assertions that are within the pleader’s personal 

knowledge and are otherwise admissible evidence, see Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454,460 

(9th Cir. 1995); see also Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1090 n.1 (9th Cir. 1996). The evidence 

presented on each claim must not only be admissible, but also must be sufficient for a jury to 

reasonably return a verdict for the opposing party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. If the opposing 

party fails to contradict the moving party with declarations or other evidence, the moving party’s 

evidence may be taken as the truth.

It is not the district court’s job to search the record for a genuine issue of triable fact. 

Keenan v. Allen, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). The opposing party has the burden of 

identifying with reasonable particularity the evidence that precludes summary judgment. Id. 

If the moving party has met its burden of proof and the opposing party fails to set forth 

specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, then “the moving party is entitled to 

 1 A declaration is a statement of facts which are personally known to the person making the 

declaration. The facts in a declaration must be admissible in evidence, i.e., evidentiary facts and 

not conclusions or argument. The declaration must show affirmatively that the person making the 

declaration is competent to testify to the matters stated therein and contain no inadmissible hearsay 

or opinions. A declaration must be made under penalty of perjury, i.e., it must be signed at the 

end after the statement “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct 

and that this declaration was executed on [date].”

Case 3:14-cv-03683-JSC Document 36 Filed 04/23/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. A successful motion for summary 

judgment terminates the action without trial and will result in a final judgment on the merits, or if 

a partial motion, disposes of a particular claim or claims for relief.

The Court hereby resets the schedule for Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment (Dkt. No. 33) as follows: Plaintiff’s opposition is due May 18, 2015 and Defendant’s 

optional reply is due June 1, 2015. The Court will hear the motion on June 18, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. 

in Courtroom F, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, California. The case management 

conference is also reset from May 21, 2015 to 9:00 a.m. on June 18, 2015. 

Plaintiff is reminded that he may contact the Legal Help Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 

15th Floor, Room 2796, Telephone No. (415)-782-8982, for free assistance regarding his claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03683-JSC Document 36 Filed 04/23/15 Page 3 of 3