Opinion ID: 573636
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: TOPA's Motion For Summary Judgment

Text: 5 Pachulski contends the district court erred in relying on Local Rule 7.9 in granting TOPA's motion for summary judgment. That rule reads in relevant part: [p]apers not timely filed by a party ... will not be considered and may be deemed by the Court consent to the granting or denial of the motion. Pachulski argues, on a variety of grounds, that even in the absence of opposition, the court must determine the motion for summary judgment based on the pleadings, records and files in the case. 6 The district courts have the authority, however, to make local rules not inconsistent with the federal rules of civil procedure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 83. We fail to see how this local rule is inconsistent with the federal rules--indeed, it seems entirely in harmony with the default provisions of Rule 55 governing default judgments. 7 In this case, appellant's counsel sought and was granted six additional weeks to file his opposition papers. Despite full knowledge of the court-ordered deadline, he failed to request an extension before the time expired. The district court thus did not abuse its discretion in deeming appellant's failure to file an opposition within the allotted time as consent to the granting of the motion for summary judgment. Cf. Yusov v. Yusuf, 892 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir.1989). 8 For the same reason, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in disregarding appellant's opposition to TOPA's motion for summary judgment. 1