Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05182/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05182-22/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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RONALD FRANK FIDGE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, ET 

AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 13-cv-05182-YGR 

ORDER PROVIDING SECOND RAND

SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOTICE

On October 29, 2014, Defendants Steve Wright, et al., (“Lake County Defendants”) filed a 

motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff Ronald Frank Fidge in this matter. (Dkt. No. 106.) 

Following the filing thereof, the Court provided plaintiff with a Rand summary judgment notice, 

informing Plaintiff of what is required in order to oppose summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 109.) 

In connection with their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 

114), Defendants Grant Hardester, LLC, et al. (“Hardester’s Defendants”) also filed a crossmotion for summary judgment against Plaintiff (Dkt. No. 126). At the same time, the Hardester’s 

Defendants filed their cross-motion separately as an independent motion. (Dkt. No. 129.) 

Pursuant to the local civil rules, Plaintiff’s opposition to this separate motion was due 

December 10, 2014. (See N.D. Cal. L. Civ. R. 7-3(a).) In connection with his own motion for 

summary judgment, plaintiff’s reply was due December 3, 2014. To date, Plaintiff has filed no 

response to the Hardester’s cross-motion for summary judgment, nor has he filed a reply in 

support of his own motion for summary judgment specifically in response to arguments raised in 

the Hardester’s Defendants’ cross-motion. 

Ninth Circuit authority indicates that self-represented plaintiffs should be given “notice of 

what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment motions at the time of filing of 

the motions. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998); Woods v. Carey, 684 

F.3d 934, 935, 940-41 (9th Cir. 2012). The Court notes that Plaintiff was previously apprised of 

Case 4:13-cv-05182-YGR Document 147 Filed 05/12/15 Page 1 of 2
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 Californi

a

what he must do in order to oppose summary judgment, and has filed an opposition to the Lake 

County Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (See Dkt. No. 109; 119.) The Court further 

notes that the Hardester’s Defendants’ cross-motion overlaps in part with the substance of the 

Lake County Defendants’ motion. In addition, Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment 

of his own. 

Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, in light of the fact that Plaintiff is proceeding 

pro se, the Court provides the following notice, for the second time, to Plaintiff for his information 

in connection with the Hardester Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment: 

Defendant is making a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which, if granted, will end your case by 

granting judgment in favor of Defendant. Rule 56 tells you what you must do 

in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary 

judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact -- that 

is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your 

case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a 

motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or 

other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. 

Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e). The 

evidence in those documents must contradict the facts shown in the defendant’s 

declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material 

fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary 

judgment may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted in favor 

of the defendant, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

See Rand, 154 F.3d at 962-63. In light of this notice, Plaintiff shall have until May 25, 2015 to 

file an opposition to the Hardester’s Defendants’ motion for summary judgment addressing any 

arguments or evidence not previously contained in the briefing to this point. Any reply will be 

due June 1, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 12, 2015 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:13-cv-05182-YGR Document 147 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 2