Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00332/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00332-15/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Luckey
Plaintiff
Visalia Unified School District
Defendant

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY LUCKEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

VISALIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

ECF NO. 47

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) 

DAYS

On February 5, 2015, Plaintiff Timothy Luckey (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for summary 

judgment. (ECF No. 47.) The motion was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for 

Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72. (ECF No. 

49.)

Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective. On August 20, 2014, the Court issued the 

Scheduling Order in this matter. The Scheduling Order mandated that any party who files a 

motion for summary judgment must meet and confer with the opposing party to discuss the 

issues raised in the motion and to arrive at a Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts. (Scheduling 

Order, at pg. 5:13-21.) Any party filing a motion for summary judgment must file a Joint 

Statement of Undisputed Facts and certify that the parties met and conferred prior to filing the 

motion. (Scheduling Order, at pg. 5:22-27.)

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 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

2

Plaintiff did not file a Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts. Plaintiff did file a “New 

Statement Of Undisputed Material Fact” which indicates that Plaintiff spoke with Defendant’s 

counsel regarding a potential motion for summary judgment. However, it does not appear that 

the parties made any attempt to draft a Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts.

Further, Local Rule 260(a) requires the Statement of Undisputed Facts to enumerate 

discretely (i.e., separately and distinctly) each of the specific material facts and cite the 

particular portions of any pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer, admission, or 

other document relied upon to establish that fact.

Plaintiff’s New Statement of Undisputed Material Fact is simply a rambling narrative hat 

fails to establish the elements of his claims. The “facts” stated therein are not enumerated 

discretely. There are no citations to the particular portions of the evidence which supports each 

discretely enumerated fact. Accordingly, it fails to comply with Local Rule 260(a).

While the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice on procedural grounds, it is 

worth nothing that based upon the Court’s cursory review of the motion, it appears that the 

evidence submitted by Plaintiff in support of his motion for summary judgment is insufficient to 

support a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appears to misunderstand the summary 

judgment process. Motions for summary judgment are appropriate in circumstances where there 

is no genuine dispute between the parties regarding the facts of the case. Plaintiff’s own 

evidence shows there is a dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant regarding the facts of this 

case. Plaintiff believes he was terminated and retaliated against due to his race. Plaintiff’s own 

evidence shows that Defendant believes that Plaintiff was terminated due to neglect of duty, 

insubordination, willful disobedience, violation of rules, policies procedures, and other “failure 

of good behavior.” Clearly there is a dispute between the parties regarding the facts. Without 

expressing an opinion one way or another regarding the facts, it is clear that the facts are in 

dispute and Plaintiff’s claims must be resolved by trial, not by the summary judgment process.

As discussed above, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion on procedural grounds because it 

does not appear that the parties complied with the Court’s order to meet and confer. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff did not comply with Local Rule 260’s requirements with respect to 

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 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

3

motions for summary judgment and the formatting of the Statement of Undisputed Facts. The 

Court denies Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to refile a motion for 

summary judgment which satisfies the requirements established in the Court’s Scheduling Order 

and the Local Rules.

Based upon the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment be DENIED without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within thirty (30)

days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings 

and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district 

judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 3 of 3