Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03043/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03043-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

O. MATTHEW THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN FRANCISCO TRAVEL ASSOCIATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03043-YGR 

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 33

Defendant San Francisco Travel Association filed a motion for summary judgment on June 

29, 2015. (Dkt. No. 19.) On August 10, 2015, plaintiff O. Matthew Thomas filed an untimely 

reply. (Dkt. No. 24.) Plaintiff filed his opposition in pro per, although his counsel was never 

granted leave to withdraw from the case; moreover, the real party in interest appears to be a 

corporation listed as a “dba” for Thomas in the caption of the complaint. (See Dkt. No. 35.) 

Defendant moved to strike the opposition. (Dkt. No. 27.) Thereafter, Judge James Donato struck 

portions of documents filed in connection with the motion for summary judgment and motion to 

strike containing “inappropriate disclosures about confidential settlement negotiations between the 

parties.” (Dkt. No. 31.) Judge Donato then recused himself from the case. (Id.) The case was 

subsequently reassigned to the undersigned judge, and defendant filed a letter seeking clarification 

as to the process from re-noticing its motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 33.) As to the 

issues raised in the letter, the Court ORDERS as follows:

Defendant shall re-file its motion for summary judgment, including a separate statement of 

material facts, pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases. The requirement of a prefiling conference is waived in this instance. The Court deems the pending motions for summary 

judgment and to strike WITHDRAWN. The Court understands that counsel for plaintiff has not yet 

withdrawn from the case, and no motion to withdraw is pending. Thus, to the extent the newly 

Case 4:14-cv-03043-YGR Document 36 Filed 10/20/15 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 California

filed motion is opposed, plaintiff shall file an appropriate and timely opposition brief through 

counsel.

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 19, 27.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2015

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:14-cv-03043-YGR Document 36 Filed 10/20/15 Page 2 of 2