Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00772/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00772-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Boston
Defendant
Jessey Esposito
Defendant
Christopher Gonzales
Defendant
Tony Tennento
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

TONY TENNENTO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTOPHER BOSTON, 

CHRISTOPHER GONZALES, and 

JESSEY ESPOSITO,

Defendants.

No. 1:14-cv-00772-DAD-JLT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED, 

AND REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO 

SUBMIT WRITTEN OPPOSITION

On August 30, 2016, defendants Christopher Boston, Christopher Gonzales, and Jessey 

Esposito filed a motion for summary judgment in this action. (Doc. No. 32.) Pursuant to the 

Local Rules of this court, plaintiff Tony Tenneto was required to serve and file a response not 

more than twenty-one days after the date of service of the motion. Local Rule 230(l); see also

Local Rule 230(c) (“A responding party who has no opposition to the granting of the motion shall 

serve and file a statement to that effect.”). On September 14, 2016, the court issued a minute 

order requiring the parties to file opposition and reply briefs in accordance with the Local Rules

and indicating that the motion would be submitted for decision on the papers without oral 

argument. (Doc. No. 34.) Nonetheless, to date, plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement 

of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. 

/////

Case 1:14-cv-00772-DAD-JLT Document 35 Filed 11/14/16 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

In light of plaintiff’s failure to respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, this 

court hereby orders plaintiff Tenneto to show cause why defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment should not be granted. Specifically, plaintiff Tenneto is directed to file a written 

response within twenty-eight (28) days of service of this order.

1

 In his response, plaintiff 

Tenneto should (1) state why defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 32) should not be granted, and (2) 

include any evidence in support of his position that defendants’ motion should not be granted. If 

plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the court will deem defendants’ motion submitted on the 

present record and issue an order addressing the motion based solely on the arguments and 

evidence submitted by defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 11, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff may, not more than fourteen (14) days after an opposition has been filed, if any, serve 

and file a reply to defendant’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

Case 1:14-cv-00772-DAD-JLT Document 35 Filed 11/14/16 Page 2 of 2