Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01303/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01303-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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 

MIRIAM RODRIGUEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, INC. et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-01303-KJM-CMK 

ORDER 

On March 7, 2016, defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. moved for summary 

judgment. ECF No. 16. It noticed a hearing for April 22, 2016. Id. Under the local rules of this 

District, an opposition was due on April 8, 2016. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). On April 5, 2016, 

Miriam Rodriguez filed a request to continue the hearing and opposition deadline under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). ECF No. 20. Wells Fargo opposed that motion. ECF No. 22. 

Ms. Rodriguez did not file an opposition to Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment before 

the April 8, 2016 deadline passed. 

On April 11, 2016, acting on its own motion, the court reset the hearing on Wells 

Fargo’s motion for summary judgment for May 18, 2016. ECF No. 23. A few days later, on 

April 19, 2016, the court denied Ms. Rodriguez’s request under Rule 56(d), but allowed her to 

submit a joint stipulation and proposed order after a further effort to meet and confer with counsel 

Case 2:15-cv-01303-KJM-CMK Document 26 Filed 05/04/16 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

for Wells Fargo. ECF No. 24. Since then, Ms. Rodriguez has neither filed an opposition to the 

pending motion for summary judgment nor renewed her request under Rule 56(d). Wells Fargo 

now requests clarification whether the court’s previous orders reset the date by which Ms. 

Rodriguez’s opposition must be filed. ECF No. 25. 

Wells Fargo’s request is GRANTED. The court’s minute order at ECF No. 23 did 

not retroactively reset the date by which Ms. Rodriguez’s opposition was due. But she remains 

free to renew her request under Rule 56(d), as provided by the court’s previous order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 3, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01303-KJM-CMK Document 26 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 2