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

* This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1 Plaintiff also moves for summary judgment on claim five of his

complaint. Claim five, however, was dismissed by the Order filed

January 19, 2005. Therefore that portion of Plaintiff’s motion need not

be considered. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS ENGRAHM, )

) 02:04-cv-1290-GEB-GGH

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER*

v. )

)

COUNTY OF COLUSA, COUNTY OF COLUSA )

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, JOHN )

S. WRYSINSKI, individually and in )

his capacity as Director of County )

of Colusa Dept. of Public Works, )

DONALD F. STANTON, individually )

and in his capacity as legal )

counsel to County of Colusa, DAVID )

J. Shoemaker, individually and in )

his capacity as CAO/Personnel )

Director of Colusa County Dept. of )

Public Works, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on five of his claims

against Defendants and on Defendants’ counter-claim for breach of

contract.1 (Pl.’s Mot for Summ. J. at 3.) Summary judgment is

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH Document 111 Filed 12/15/05 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

appropriate if the pleadings and supporting documents, viewed in the

light most favorable to the nonmoving party, “show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Jesinger v.

Nevada Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Plaintiff’s motion, however, is devoid of relevant

substantive law and analysis. Since Plaintiff has failed to provide

relevant legal authority in support of his motion, he has not shown

“there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [he] is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” It is evident that

apprising the Court of the substantive law applicable to the motion is

a burden of the movant.

Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on Defendants’ counterclaim for breach of contract. In this counter-claim, Defendants

allege that by bringing the pending action Plaintiff breached a

Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) relating to Plaintiff’s prior

litigation against Defendants. (Pl.’s Request for Judicial Notice

Ex. 6.) The Agreement provides that “[Plaintiff releases Defendants]

for any and all claims existing at the signing of th[e] Agreement.” 

(Id.) Plaintiff argues that all his claims arose after the signing of

the Agreement, and therefore he did not breach the Agreement. (Pl.’s

Mot. for Summ. J. 13.) Defendants counter that Plaintiff’s complaint

alleges pre-Agreement facts and events, incorporates those facts and

events into each claim, and consequently puts claims that arose before

the Agreement “affirmatively at issue.” (Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot.

for Summ. J. at 23-24.) The Complaint may be reasonably construed as

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH Document 111 Filed 12/15/05 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

Defendants argue. Therefore, a genuine issue of material fact exists

as to whether Plaintiff breached the Agreement when he filed the

pending action. 

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 15, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH Document 111 Filed 12/15/05 Page 3 of 3