Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01239/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01239-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing 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

The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances 1

underlying the present motion.

“DFEH” refers to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. 

2

“HUD” refers to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development . 3

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CATHY ENWERE, 

Plaintiff,

v.

TERMAN ASSOCIATES, L.P., dba

TERMAN APARTMENTS, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 07-1239 JF (PVT)

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S “RESPONSE

TO MOTION TO COMPEL ORDER

REQUESTING TIME TO PREPARE

AND INTER [sic] SUMMARY

JUDGEMENT”

On July 23, 2008, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Response to Motion to Compel Order

Requesting Time to Prepare and Inter [sic] Summary Judgement.” Based on this document and the 1

file herein, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for time to prepare a motion for summary

judgment against DFEH and HUD is denied. Summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 is only 2 3

available against the actual parties to an action. Neither DFEH nor HUD is a party to this action. As

the court noted in its last order, the only jurisdiction it has over non-parties is by virtue of Plaintiff

Case 5:07-cv-01239-JF Document 78 Filed 07/24/08 Page 1 of 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 Documents filed using ECF are sometimes not filed until after the clerk’s office closes 4

for the day.

ORDER, page 2

serving the non-party with a Rule 45 subpoena. 

Plaintiff served DFEH with a subpoena, and the court has now issued an order on Plaintiff’s

motion to compel compliance with that subpoena. The court has no jurisdiction to grant any other

relief to Plaintiff with regard to the subpoena to DFEH, other than ensuring DFEH complies with the

order the court has issued.

Plaintiff complains she did not receive the response from DFEH by July 22, 2008 as ordered

by the court. The court notes that the day a response is due is the date it must be filed with the court

and mailed to Plaintiff, not the date by which Plaintiff must receive it. DFEH did file its response on

July 22, 2008. The court assumes Plaintiff will have received her copy of DFEH’s response by the

time she receives this order. Plaintiff is always welcome to check the court’s file the day after the 4

deadline for a document to be filed to view the document in the court’s file (on the court’s publicly

available computer for documents that are filed using the court’s Electronic Case Filing system

“ECF”).

It appears Plaintiff has not yet served a Rule 45 subpoena on HUD. Unless and until Plaintiff

serves HUD with a valid subpoena, the court has no jurisdiction to order HUD to do anything in

connection with Plaintiff’s case.

Dated: 7/24/08

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-01239-JF Document 78 Filed 07/24/08 Page 2 of 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

ORDER, page 3

Counsel automatically notified of this filing via the court’s Electronic Case Filing system.

copies mailed on 7/24/08 to:

Cathy Enwere

1263 Madera Ave.

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

 /s/ Donna Kirchner for 

 CORINNE LEW

Courtroom Deputy 

Case 5:07-cv-01239-JF Document 78 Filed 07/24/08 Page 3 of 3