Gastelum v. Pinnacle Hotel Circle LP
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment without first obtaining a hearing date from the court's clerk, in violation of the Southern District of California's Civil Local Rules. The court struck the motion for this procedural failure but allowed the plaintiff to refile it in accordance with proper procedures.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Summary Judgment Striked“Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the Motion for failure to comply with this District’s Civil Local Rules.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the local rules which require a party to obtain a hearing date before filing a motion. Citing Kashin v. Kent, the court noted that this requirement is of substantial importance as it triggers the briefing calendar. Striking the motion for non-compliance with local procedural rules is a standard exercise of the court's inherent power and authority under Civil Local Rule 83.1(a). The allowance to refile is consistent with the remedial nature of the sanction. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It identifies the specific local rule violation (failure to obtain a hearing date), cites controlling district case law (Kashin) that affirms the significance of this rule, and cites the local rule authorizing sanctions for non-compliance. The remedy (striking the motion but allowing refiling) is appropriate and consistent with the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERNANDO GASTELUM, an individual, Case No.: 21-CV-1458 JLS (DEB)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 PINNACLE HOTEL CIRCLE LP dba Comfort Inn and Suites San Diego Zoo 15 (ECF No. 36) SeaWorld Area, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20 36). The Motion was filed without Plaintiff first obtaining a hearing date from chambers, 21 in violation of Civil Local Rules 7.1(b) and 7.1(f)(1). “The requirement that a party obtain 22 a hearing date from the judge’s clerk is no empty formality; it is a rule of substantial 23 importance. Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(1)–(3), the hearing date sets in motion a 24 calendar for the filing of opposition and reply briefs.” Kashin v. Kent, No. 25 02CV2495LAB(WMC), 2007 WL 1975435, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2007), aff’d, 342 F. 26 App’x 341 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Civil Local Rules is 27 grounds to reject the filing. See id. at *2; see also S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.1(a) (providing that 28 failure to comply with the Civil Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court 1 any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the inherent power of the 2 ||Court”’). Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the Motion for failure to comply with this 3 || District’s Civil Local Rules. Plaintiff MAY REFILE the Motion in accordance with 4 || appropriate Court procedures. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: May 18, 2023 jae LL mrmaitene- 7 on. Janis L. Sammartino g United States District Judge 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28