Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00239/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00239-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBA M. INGRAM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

and JUNKO CRAFT,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-00239 JSW

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY

JUDGMENT MOTION

On September 20, 2005, Defendants City and County of San Francisco and Junko Craft

filed a motion for summary judgment. On September 22, 2005, this Court issued an order

indicting that Plaintiff Ingram, proceeding pro se after the withdrawal of her counsel, Richard

Rogers, had an obligation to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion. The order explained that

failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the case with prejudice. The order stated that a

motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would, if

granted, end Plaintiff’s case. See Rand v. Rowland 154 F.3d 952, 953-54 (9th Cir.1998) (en

banc). 

The order further set out the requirements of opposing a motion for summary judgment

and indicated that Plaintiff had until October 7, 2005, to file an opposition to Defendants’

motion for summary judgment. By subsequent order dated September 28, 2005, this Court

extended the due date for Plaintiff’s opposition until October 21, 2005. Once more, after

having 

received a request to extend the deadline by Plaintiff, this Court issued an order on October 25, 

Case 3:04-cv-00239-JSW Document 62 Filed 01/09/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2005, extending both discovery and the deadline to oppose the pending motion for summary

judgment until December 23, 2005 and set the motion for hearing on January 20, 2006. By

letter dated December 21, 2005, Plaintiff informed the Court that she would not oppose the

motion for summary judgment. 

A principal purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to identify and dispose of

factually supported claims. See Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). In

order to withstand a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff must set forth specific 

facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact in dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). A

dispute about a material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could

return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986). In the absence of such facts, “the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of 

law.” Celotex Corp., 477 at 323. In opposing summary judgment, Ingram is not entitled to rely

on the allegations of her complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); cf. S. A. Empresa de Viacao

Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines) v. Walter Kidde & Co., 690 F.2d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir.

1982) (stating that “a party cannot manufacture a genuine issue of material fact merely by

making assertions in its legal memoranda”). Rather, Ingram must set forth specific facts

supported by admissible evidence, i.e., affidavits or certified deposition testimony, showing that

there is a genuine issue for trial. See id.; see also Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir.

1996) (quoting Richards v. Combined Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1995)). 

Finding the motion well-taken and finding no dispute of material fact, and having given

Plaintiff three extensions of time to take the necessary discovery and file an opposition to the

pending motion, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. A judgment

will follow. The hearing date of January 20, 2006 is VACATED. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2006 JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-00239-JSW Document 62 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 2